(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Calendar : meeting of Finance Committee, Board of Supervisors, City and County of San Francisco"

5 CLOSED 
STACKS 



m 



NT IMPORW/'JnON CENTER 
IARY 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



REFERENCE 
BOOK 

Nol In be lakcii from llic Library 



DfcC 1 2 ** 



SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC LIBRARY 

" I II Ml I 



3 1223 05718 2900 



Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2013 



http://archive.org/details/5calendarmeetingo1992sanf 



S10-^ A D0CUMPNT.9 DEPT. 

#Q, € A L E N D A R — Anient NOV 9 1992 



\\\<\t 



MEETING OF SA N FRANCISCO 

FINANCE COMMITTEE PUBLIC LIBRARY 

<£ BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 



WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 1992 - 2:00 P.M. ROOM 228, CITY HALL 

PRESENT: SUPERVISORS GONZALEZ AND MIGDEN 

ABSENT: SUPERVISOR HALLINAN 

CLERK: GAIL JOHNSON 

NOTE: Copies of the Budget Analyst's Report will be available for review on the 
counter in the Office of the Clerk of the Board, Room 235, City Hall, 
10:00 a.m., the date of the meeting. 

CONSENT CALENDAR 

1. All matters listed hereunder constitute a Consent Calendar, are considered to be 
routine by the Finance Committee, and will be acted upon by a single roll call vote 
of the Committee. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a 
member of the Committee or a member of the public so requests, in which event the 
matter shall be removed from the Consent Calendar and considered as a separate 
item. 

(a) File 101-91-38.4 . [Release of Funds] Requesting release of reserved funds, 
Public Library, in the amount of $106,898, for geotechnical services during 
construction. (Public Library) 

(Cont'd from 10/28/92) 

ACTION: Hearing held. Release of $117,588 recommended. Filed. 

(b) File 101-90-36.2 . [Release of Funds] Requesting release of reserved funds, 
Department of Parking and Traffic, in an amount totalling $525,148 ($28,671 to 
City Planning Department for environmental review costs and $496,477 for 
identified hazardous waste clean-up costs) at the new San Francisco General 
Hospital parking garage. (Department of Parking and Traffic) 

ACTION: Continued to November 18, 1992, meeting. 

(c) File 132-92-3.1 . [Release of Funds] Requesting release of reserved funds, Arts 
Commission, in the amount of $29,400, for consultant services. (Arts 
Commission) 

ACTION: Release of $29,400 recommended. Filed. 



REGULAR CALENDAR 

2. File 188-92-1 . Hearing to consider the fiscal impact of the 1987 contracts with 
Pacific Gas and Electric and the Modesto and Turlock Irrigation Districts for the 
purchase and sale of Hetch Hetchy water. (Supervisor Migden) 
(Cont'd from 10/21/92) 

ACTION: Continued to November 18, 1992, meeting. 



3. File 100-92-9 . Hearing to consider the City's efforts to secure anticipated revenues 
and fund transfers needed to balance the 1992-93 fiscal year budget for the City and 
County of San Francisco. (Supervisor Gonzalez) 

ACTION: Continued to November 18, 1992, meeting. 



4. File 38-92-25 . [Gift Acceptance] Resolution accepting one gift valued at $5,480, 
from Wells Fargo Bank, for publication of the Recreation and Park Department 
Summer Activities Brochure. (Recreation and Park Department) 
(Cont'd from 10/28/92) 

ACTION: Continued to November 18, 1992, meeting. 



File 64-92-24 . [Lease of Real Property] Resolution authorizing a new lease of real 
property at 10 United Nations Plaza, Suite 260, for the Mayor's Office of Children, 
Youth and Their Families. (Real Estate Department) 

ACTION: Amended on page 1, line 4, after "families", by adding "retroactive to 

October 1, 1992". Recommended as amended. New title: "Authorizing a 
new lease of real property at 10 United Nations Plaza, Suite 260, for the 
Mayor's Office of Children, Youth and Their Families; retroactive to 
October 1, 1992." 



File 97-92-61 . [Fee Surcharges] Ordinance amending Administrative Code by adding 
Chapter 10F, to establish a surcharge on plan, permit, environmental review, and 
related fees to recover costs for acquiring office space at 1660 Mission Street; 
companion measure to File 172—92—15. (Chief Administrative Officer) 

ACTION: Recessed to November 9, 1992, at 12:00 noon. 



3 1223 05718 2900 



File 172-92-15 . [Agreement] Ordinance approving and authorizing the execution and 
delivery of an agreement of purchase and sale for real estate, (including certain 
indemnities and the release of the seller contained therein), an assignment of 
agreement for purchase and sale agreement of real estate, a facilities lease 
(including certain indemnities contained therein), a trust agreement (including 
certain indemnities contained therein), and an official statement; authorizing the 
distribution of an official notice inviting bids in connection with the City and County 
of San Francisco certificates of participation (1660 Mission Street Project) Series 
1993; authorizing the Chief Administrative Officer to fix rents to be charged and to 
submit budgets for approval; authorizing and ratifying execution of documents 
reasonably necessary for the execution, delivery and sale of the certificates of 
participation; and adopting findings pursuant to City Planning Code Section 101.1, all 
in connection with the acquisition and leasing of the 1660 Mission Street property; 
companion measure to File 97-92-61. (Chief Administrative Officer) 

ACTION: Recessed to November 9, 1992, at 12:00 noon. 



8. File 65-92-11 . [Lease of Property] Ordinance authorizing and approving lease of 
City-owned property at 1800 Oakdale Avenue (southeast Community Facility, 
northwest corner of Phelps Street and Oakdale Avenue) to the San Francisco 
Community College District. (Real Estate Department) 

ACTION: Hearing held. Continued to the Call of the Chair. 

9. Fiie 124-92-9 . [Parking Meters] Ordinance amending Traffic Code by amending 
Section 32.8.12 thereof, to remove the parking facility at 1350 Bush Street from 
those off-street parking sites on which parking meters may be used. (Parking 
Authority) 

(Transferred from Economic and Social Policy Committee 10/27/92 - 
Fiscal Impact) 

ACTION: Recommended. 



10. File 161-92-7 . [South of Market Survey Area] Resolution amending Resolution No. 
177-90, designating and describing the South of Market Survey Area by adding 
additional Land to said survey area. (Redevelopment Agency) 

(Transferred from Economic and Social Policy Committee 10/27/92 - 
Fiscal Impact) 

ACTION: Recommended. 



7 45243 SFPL: ECONO JRS 
206 SFPL 11/22/00 32 



SF 



CITY AND COUNTY 



*& 




fP^^fic LiBrary, (Documents CDept. 
SVFlftQ Qerry %gtk 

OF SAN FRANCISCO 



ARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

1390 MARKET STREET, SUITE 1025 

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102 • TELEPHONE (415) 554-7642 



November 2, 1992 



TO: "Finance Committee 

FROM: Budget Analyst Ac**. 



etjJeTi- 



/«*i 



SUBJECT: November 4, 1992 Finance Committee Meeting 



D0Cl iMPMTsnEPT. 

NOV 3 1992 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



Item la - File 101-91-38.4 

Note: This item was continued at the October 28, 1992 Finance Committee 
Meeting. 

Department: Public Library S£^ fa 1 

Item: Request for release of reserved funds for geotechnical 

services during construction of the new Main Library 



Amount: 



$106,898 



Source of Funds: 1988 Library Improvement Bonds 

Description: The Board of Supervisors has previously approved a 

supplemental appropriation (File 101-91-38) in the amount of 
$4,015,003 for project services related to the construction of 
the new Main Library. Of the $4,015,003 appropriated, a total 
of $1,529,805 was placed on reserve pending selection of 
contractors and determination of the MBE/WBE status of the 
contractors and contract cost details. Of the $1,529,805 
originally placed on reserve, a total of $549,772 has previously 
been released by the Finance Committee, leaving a balance of 
$980,033 on reserve. 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 4, 1992 



The balance of $980,033 in reserved funding includes $120,000 
for geotechnical services consulting. This item is a request to 
release $106,898 of the $120,000 reserve for geotechnical 

services. 

The geotechnical services consultant would 1) monitor the 
excavation activities for the new Main Library to determine 
that the actual soil conditions encountered during excavation 
are compatible with the design requirements by performing 
and evaluating soil density tests, 2) review and approve the 
shoring design submitted by the construction contractor, 3) 
observe excavation in preparation for the foundation and 4) 
monitor the pile driving associated with shoring and 
foundation work. 

The geotechnical consulting firm of Geo/Resource 
Consultants, Inc., was retained by the construction 
management contractor, O'Brien-Kreitzberg & Associates, 
Inc., as a subcontractor to assist in preparation of the 
Environmental Impact Report. According to Mr. Russ Abel 
of the Department of Public Works, Bureau of Architecture, 
in order to maintain continuity of professional responsibility 
throughout the construction of the new Main Library, it is 
desirable to utilize the same geotechnical consultant for all 
phases of the planning, design and construction of the new 
Main Library. Therefore, Geo/Resource Consultants, Inc., 
will continue as the geotechnical consultant subcontractor 
under the prime contractor, O'Brien-Kreitzberg for the new 
Main Library construction project. 

Geo/Resource Consultants, Inc., is a local business but is not 
an MBE or WBE firm. Geo/Resource Consultants, Inc., has 
estimated the costs for their services totaling $106,898, as 
follows: 

Professional Services: 

Principal Engineer (90 hours @ $135 per hour) $12,150 

Project Engineer (220 hours @ $70 per hour) 15,400 

Staff Engineer (548 hours @ $65 per hour) 35,620 

Support Staff (74 hours @ $40 per hour) 2,960 

Other Professional Services 3.050 

Total-Professional Services $69,180 

Sub-Subcontracts: 

Shoring Review and Soil Observation $20,000 

Indicator Piles 8.000 

Total-Subcontracts 28.000 

Total - Geo/Resource Consultants, Inc. $97,180 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

2 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 4, 1992 

O'Brien-Kreitzberg administration of 
Geo/Resource Consultants, Inc., 
subcontract (10 percent per master agreement) $ 9.718 

Total Requested Release of Reserve $106,898 

Comment: Mr. Abel was not able to provide the Budget Analyst with 

details of the Other Professional Services of $3,050 or the Sub- 
Subcontracts costs totally $28,000 when this item was first 
heard on October 28, 1992 and, therefore, the item was 
continued at Mr. Abel's request in order to obtain the details 
required. However, as of the writing of this report for the 
November 4, 1992 Finance Committee Meeting, Mr. Abel still 
could not provide the Budget Analyst with the cost details. 
This release of reserved funds should be continued to the next 
Finance Committee meeting on November 18, 1992. 

Recommendation: Continue the proposed release of reserved funds until 
November 18, 1992. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

3 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 4, 1992 

Item lb - File 101-90-36.2 



Department: Department of Parking and Traffic 

Item: Release of reserve for the new San Francisco General 

Hospital parking garage. 

Amount: $525,148 

Source of Funds: Off-Street Parking Funds 



Description: 



Comment: 



Recommendation: 



The Board of Supervisors previously approved legislation 
authorizing a supplemental appropriation in the amount of 
$1,000,000, for the Department of Parking and Traffic, to be 
used to pay for hazardous waste removal and environmental 
review fees in connection with the proposed new San 
Francisco General Hospital Garage. At the same time, the 
Board of Supervisors placed the entire $1,000,000 on reserve 
pending the Department of Parking and Traffic's selection of 
contractors and determination of hours, hourly rates and the 
MBE/WBE status of the contractors (File 101-90-36). Of the 
$1,000,000, $474,852 has previously been released from 
reserve, leaving a balance of $525,148 still on reserve. The 
$474,852 previously released from reserve was used to pay for 
contract services for the performance of the Environmental 
Impact Review ($162,850) and for contract services for the 
provision of hazardous waste removal ($312,002). 

The Department of Parking and Traffic is now requesting 
that the remaining balance of $525,148 be released from 
reserve. The Department of Parking and Traffic reports that 
$28,671 of the $525,148 would be used to pay for the City 
Planning Department's environmental review costs and the 
remaining $496,477 would be used to pay for additional 
contract services for the provision of hazardous waste 
removal. 

The Department of Parking and Traffic has requested that 
this item be continued to the Finance Committee meeting on 
November 18, 1992, in order to allow the Department 
additional time to provide budget details for the Department 
of City Planning's costs and the hazardous waste removal 
contract services. 

Continue this item to the Finance Committee meeting on 
November 18, 1992, as requested by the Department of 
Parking and Traffic. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 4, 1992 

Item lc - File 132-92-3.1 



Department: 
Item: 
Amount: 
Source of Funds: 
Description: 



Arts Commission 

Release of reserve for consultant services 

$29,400 

National Endowment for the Arts grant 

The Board of Supervisors previously approved legislation 
authorizing the Arts Commission to apply for, accept 
and expend a Federal grant, in the amount of $30,000, 
from the National Endowment for the Arts (File 132-92- 
3). This grant was to be used primarily to fund 
consulting services to assist in the development of a long 
range planning process for the Arts Commission and its 
programs. At the same time that the Board of 
Supervisors approved this legislation, it placed $29,400 of 
the $30,000, earmarked for the consulting services, on 
reserve pending the Arts Commission providing the 
estimated hours, hourly rates, and the MBE/WBE status 
of the consultant. 

The Arts Commission reports that it issued a Request 
for Proposals in June of 1992 and has selected the Arts 
Market to provide the necessary consultant services, at a 
total cost of $54,763. The $29,400 in grant funds plus 
$25,363 in Public Art funds included in the Arts 
Commission's 1992-1993 budget, would be used to pay for 
these consultant services. 

The Arts Market is a woman-owned firm located in 
Marion, Massachusetts. This firm is not certified or 
registered with the City as a WBE firm. According to 
Ms. Joanne Chow Winship, Director of Cultural Affairs 
for the Arts Commission, the Arts Market has two 
minority consultants, one of who is a resident of San 
Francisco and the other of who is a resident of the City of 
Palo Alto, who will serve as members of the team on this 
project. 

As noted above, the primary purpose of the consultant 
services is to provide the Arts Commission with 
assistance in the development of a long range plan for 
the Arts Commission and its programs. Additionally, 
the consultant services will be responsible for the review 
and revision of Part 2 of the Arts Policy Plan. Part 1 of 
the Arts Policy Plan describes the plan and was adopted 



BOARD OF ST JPERVLSORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

5 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 4, 1992 



in 1991 as part of the City's Master Plan. Part 2 of the 
Plan provides for the framework for implementing the 
goals and actions of the Plan. The specific tasks to be 
performed by the Arts Market include the following: 

Phasg A (seven months) 

1. Identifying and framing issues confronting the 
Commission. 

2. Meeting with citizen advisory committees and special 
focus groups to structure suggestions, needs and 
concerns. 

3. Researching, reviewing and developing, in 
conjunction with Commissioners and staff, agency 
priorities, program goals and objectives with timelines 
and responsibilities. 

4. Reviewing and clarifying the roles and responsibilities 
of staff administration and Commission policy making. 

5. Researching and developing the structure, purpose 
and feasibility of a non-profit fiscal agency which would 
complement the goals and objectives of the Arts 
Commission. 

Phase B (two months) 

Providing a written long range plan document for the 
Arts Commission based on the above noted tasks. 

Phase C (three months) 

1. Facilitating meetings with City agencies, arts focus 
groups and the Arts Commission to review and prepare 
for the adoption of Part 2 of the Arts Policy Plan. 

2. Providing written goals and implementation actions 
for Part 2 of the Arts Policy Plan. 

Ms. Winship advises that the Arts Market will be 
reimbursed on the basis of the completion of the above 
noted tasks, as opposed to an hourly rate. Arts Market's 
projected expenditures for the $54,763, are as follows: 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 4, 1992 



Phase A 



On-site Consultant Time 

Consultant (72 hours @ $100/hr.) $7,200 

Consultant (16 hours @ $50/hr.) 800 

Off-site Consultant Time 

Consultant (32 hours @ $100/hr.) 3,200 

Consultant (16 hours @ $125/hr.) 2,000 

Consultant (10 hours @ $75/hr) 750 

Consultant (4 hours @ $50/hr.) 200 

Consultant (28 hours @ $35/hr.) 980 

Subtotal $15,130 

Phase B 

On-site Consultant Time 

Consultant (16 hours @ $125/hr.) $2,000 

Consultant (16 hours @ $100/hr.) 1,600 

Off-site Consultant Time 

Consultant (16 hours @ $125/hr.) 2,000 

Consultant (4 hours @ $100/hr.) 400 

Consultant (20 hours @ $75/hr) 1,500 

Consultant (16 hours @ $35/hr.) jm 

Subtotal 8,060 

Phase C 

On-site Consultant Time 

Consultant (16 hours @$125/hr.) $2,000 

Consultant (36 hours @ $100/hr.) 3,600 

Consultant (44 hours @ $75/hr.) 3,300 

Consultant (80 hours @ $50/hr.) 4,000 

Off-site Consultant Time 

Consultant (16 hours @ $125/hr.) 2,000 

Consultant (24 hours @ $35/hr.) 840 

Consultant (80 hours @ $30/hr,) 2.400 

Subtotal 18,140 

funeral Administrative Costs 4,133 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 4, 1992 



Travel 



4 round-trip air fares Boston/San Francisco 






@$960 


$3,840 




3 round-trip air fares Providence/San 






Francisco @ $920 


2,760 




1 round-trip air fare Milwaukee/San 






Francisco @ $540 


540 




Mileage 


200 




Per diem (14 days @ $140) 


.1,960. 




Subtotal 




$9,300 


Total 




$54,763 



Comments: 1. As reflected in the budget above, $13,433 or 25 percent 

of the proposed contract is for travel and general 
administrative costs. The remaining $41,330 or 75 
percent is for direct consulting services. According to 
Ms. Winship, the reason that Arts Market consultants 
will be traveling from Milwaukee, Minnesota, Boston, 
Massachusetts, and Providence, Rhode Island, is that 
(1) Arts Market has a branch office in Minneapolis, 
Minnesota and (2) Marion, Massachusetts, where the 
main office is located, is right on the border of Rhode 
Island. 



Recommendation: 



2. The Arts Policy Plan's goals are to (1) support and 
nurture the arts through City leadership, (2) recognize 
and sustain the diversity of the cultural expressions of 
art in San Francisco, (3) recognize and support 
individual artists and arts organization, a combination 
that is vital to a thriving arts environment, (4) increase 
opportunities for quality arts education, (5) increase 
funding support for the arts in San Francisco and (6) 
enhance, develop, and protect the physical environment 
of the arts in San Francisco. 

Approve the proposed release of reserve funds in the 
amount of $24,900. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 4, 1992 



Item 2 - File 188-92-1 



Note: This item was continued from the Finance Committee meeting of October 21, 
1992. 

1. This is a hearing to consider the fiscal impact of the 1987 contracts with 
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) and the Modesto and Turlock Irrigation 
Districts (M/TID)for the purchase and sale of Hetch Hetchy hydroelectric power. 
When this item was last heard by the Finance Committee, on October 21, 1992, 
specific questions were asked by the Committee to the Budget Analyst, the Hetch 
Hetchy General Manager and the City Attorney. This report addresses those 
questions. 

2. Chronology of Contract Negotiations - Attachment 1 is a copy of the City 
Attorney's memorandum concerning the history of negotiations between the City 
and County of San Francisco, the Pacific Gas & Electric Company and the 
Modesto/Turlock Irrigation Districts. 

3. The City's Options for Re-negotiation of the Contracts - A separate 
memorandum explaining the City's options regarding re-negotiation of the terms 
and conditions of the PG&E and M/TID contracts is being prepared by the City 
Attorney and Hetch Hetchy. As of the writing of this report, this memorandum is 
not available. The Budget Analyst has been informed that the memo will be 
transmitted directly to the Finance Committee in advance of the November 4, 1992 
hearing. 

4. Reconciliation of Financial Information with San Francisco Bav 
Guardian newspaper article - The Budget Analyst was directed to analyze data 
published in a newspaper article printed in the SF Bay Guardian regarding 
historical trends in equity transfers of surplus funds from Hetch Hetchy to the 
General Fund and the costs and benefits of transactions between Hetch Hetchy, 
PG&E and M/TED over a sixteen-month period beginning in March 1991 and ending 
June 1992. This review is discussed below: 

Equity Transfers to the General Fund - The graph below provides a 
history of transfers to the General Fund for the ten-year period beginning with 
fiscal year 1983-84 and ending with the current, 1992-93 fiscal year. The chart 
below shows that the graph printed in the Bay Guardian article was substantially 
correct. However, the scale of the Bay Guardian chart served to exaggerate the 
relative differences between annual transfer amounts by depicting the transfers 
over a truncated range of $10 million to $50 million rather than the full range of 
zero to $50 million. 



BOARD OF S UPERVISORS 

Budget Analyst 

9 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 4, 1992 



Eauitv Transfers to the General Fund bv Fiscal Year (thousands) 




Charter Section 6.407 specifies the manner in which surplus funds may be 
transferred from utility funds (i.e. Hetch Hetchy and the Water Department) to the 
General Fund. Essentially, up to 25% of a preceding fiscal year's surplus may be 
transferred to the General Fund after accounting for operations, maintenance and 
repair and needed capital acquisitions and improvements. Therefore, equity 
transfers to the General Fund do not entirely result from prior year sales of Hetch 
Hetchy's hydroelectric power, but also depend on expenditures for operating and 
capital costs, other revenue such as the sale of water, and surplus balances from 
past years that had not been transferred to the General Fund. 

A further complication that must be taken into consideration when reviewing 
Hetch Hetchy transfers to the General Fund is of course the effects of recent 
drought years on the system's water supply and resulting net revenue from the 
generation of hydroelectric power. The chart on the following page shows the 
relationships between these factors. 

The chart on the next page compares equity transfers from Hetch Hetchy to 
the General Fund on a fiscal year basis with prior year (PY) values for net power 
revenue (total hydroelectric power sold less the costs of PG&E services such as 
transmission expense and capacity reserve costs and the purchase of power 
purchased from PG&E in order to meet contractual obligations). 

Also shown on the chart are values for Prior Year Natural Flow, a measure of 
total inflows, in acre-feet, into the Tuolumne River system. This provides a relative 
comparison, on a year-to-year basis, of water supply available to Hetch Hetchy for 
reservoir storage and hydroelectric power generation. 



Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 

10 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 4, 1992 



Comparison of Net Power Revenue. Equity Transfers to 
General Fund and Water Flow 



Water Flow 
-,- 6,000 



' PY Net Power Revenue 
(thousands) 

ensamsimnma Equity Transfers (thousands) 



■PY Natural Flow (1,000 Acre- 
feet) 




- - 5,000 



- - 4,000 



-- 3,000 



2,000 



1,000 



Source data for the two charts shown above and on the preceding page are 
displayed below. 





PYNet 








Power 


Equity 


PY Natural 




Revenue 


Transfers 


Flow (1,000 


Fiscal Yr. 


(thousands) 


(thousands) 


Acre-feet) 


1983-84 


$60,350 


$33,295 


4,245 


1984-85 


$59,552 


$31,000 


3,243 


1985-86 


$47,252 


$50,000 


855 


1986-87 


$60,069 


$46,000 


3,286 


1987-88 


$36,740 


$40,000 


833 


1988-89 


$28,665 


$25,000 


808 


1989-90 


$27,156 


$25,000 


1,302 


1990-91 


$34,967 


$15,000 


864 


1991-92 


$18,220 


$11,000 


1,035 


1992-93 


$33,592 


$22,600 


851 


Board of Supervisors 





Budget Analyst 



11 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 4, 1992 

5. Costs and Benefits from the Purchase of Supplemental Power from 
PG&E to meet M/TID demand - The Finance Committee has directed the Budget 
Analyst to reconcile the differences between data reported by the Bay Guardian and 
Hetch Hetchy. The Bay Guardian reported that Hetch Hetchy lost approximately 
$10.7 million over a sixteen-month period between March 1991 and June 1992. 
After conferring with Bay Guardian staff, the Budget Analyst was informed that 
their estimate of PG&E bills for services and the purchase of supplemental power 
was based on projections, of computed average payments by M/TID for such 
purchased power. The Bay Guardian staff then added the cost of capacity reserve 
payments to arrive at the $10.7 million loss figure. These calculations are 
summarized below: 

Bay Guardian Calculations for Period of March 91 to June 92 
(in millions) 

Calculated cost of Purchased Power from PG&E $ ( 17.3) 

Projected M/TED Payments for Purchased Power 12.9 

"Sales Loss" $ (4.4) 

Mandatory Capacity Reserve Charge (6.3) 

Total Loss $(10.7) 



In contrast to the Bay Guardian calculations shown above, Hetch Hetchy 
reports that during the same sixteen-month period, the City paid PG&E less than 
$6.2 million for "supplemental power" to meet the Districts' demands and charged 
the M/TID over $6.6 million for the same supplemental power, thereby realizing a 
net benefit of over $400,000 instead of the Bay Guardian's calculated "Sales Loss" of 
$4.4 million. Hetch Hetchy also reports that Capacity Reserve payments to PG&E 
over that same period amounted to $5.98 million, but that this expenditure was 
necessary not only to guarantee supplemental power but to provide "firm capacity" 
for all power generated by Hetch Hetchy, thereby assuring total revenues from 
M/TID of $27.6 million including not only the sale of power purchased from PG&E 
but also power generated by Hetch Hetchy itself. 

According to Hetch Hetchy, if capacity reserves were not guaranteed by 
PG&E, the City would not be able to sell power at firm power rates and therefore 
would not have realized total revenues of $27.6 million over this period. Hetch 
Hetchy further adds that the contract with PG&E provides "capacity reserve 
credits" which reduced supplemental power purchase costs by $7.3 million over the 
period analyzed. 

The Finance Committee directed the Budget Analyst to review billings from 
PG&E and payments by M/TED. As of the writing of this report, the Budget Analyst 
has not yet received source data to perform this review. 



Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 

12 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 4, 1992 

6. Power Market Analysis - The Finance Committee also directed the Budget 
Analyst to review any alternative market data or analyses for the services provided 
by PG&E to the City and long-term power sales agreements comparable to the 
City's contracts with M/TID. 

Hetch Hetchy reports that no alternatives exist to the transmission, firming 
and other services provided by PG&E to the City. Therefore, they are unable to 
provide meaningful data to compare with the PG&E agreement. 

Hetch Hetchy consultants, Stone & Webster, Inc. have provided a review of 
seven other long term power sales agreements in comparison to the City contracts 
with M/TED. The consultants note many factors that make comparisons difficult, 
such as the buyer/seller relationships, the years the agreements were initiated, the 
terms of the contracts, energy requirements and delivery contingencies. Such 
factors can cause variations in power prices of between 5% and 25% according to the 
consultants. 

Hetch Hetchy's consultants conclude that, while acknowledging these 
differences, the City's current price for Class 3 power sold to M/TID of 40 mills per 
kilowatt hour ($.04) is at the low end of the market, which ranges from 40 to 50 
mills per kilowatt hour. The Budget Analyst notes that this difference between the 
M/TID contract and other long term markets remains substantially unchanged from 
prior reports by the Budget Analyst, based on surveys performed by Hetch Hetchy's 
consultants in 1984 and 1988. In these prior reports, the Budget Analyst concluded 
that if the M/TID agreements reflected other market data provided by Hetch 
Hetchy's consultants, then the City would realize substantially greater revenues. 

Despite the fact that greater revenues could be achieved if the M/TID 
agreements were comparable to other long term sales contracts, according to Hetch 
Hetchy and the City Attorney, no opportunities exist to modify the existing M/TID 
agreements through re-negotiation under the contract terms and conditions. 



Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 

13 



Attachment 1 - page 1 of 1 
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 



LOUISE H. RENNE 

CITY ATTORNEY 

CITY HALL 



WATER SECTION 

Thomas M. Berliner 

Joshua D. Milstein 

John S . Roddy 

Christiane Hayashi Trippe 

Deputy City Attorneys 

(415) 554-4295 



MEMORANDUM 



DATE : 
TO: 



THROUGH ; 



FROM: 



RE: 



October 30, 1992 

SUPERVISOR JIM GONZALES 
Chair, Finance Committee 
Board of Superv: 




ANSON B. MORAN 

General Manage] 

Hetch Hetchy Wat^e-i^-^fhd Power 

THOMAS M. BERLINERl^^ 
Deputy City Attorney 

History of Negotiations With Pacific Gas & Electric 
Company and the Modesto and Turlock Irrigation 
Districts Concerning Power Sales Contracts 
(Our Ref. No. P0019/84) 



Pursuant to your request attached is a chronology of events 
leading up to the current power sales contracts with PG&E and the 
Modesto and Turlock Irrigation Districts (sometimes referred to 
as MID, TID or collectively as "Districts"). 



T.M.B. 



Enclosure 



w/ enc . 
Sup. Hallinan 
Sup. Migden 
Budget Analyst 
T. Lakey 



1470P/3 



14 



CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS RELATING TO POWER CONTRACTS ^/IlSl "rM MODESTO 
IRRIGATION DISTRICT, TURLOCK IRRIGATION DISTRICT AMD PACIFIC GAS 
AND ELECTRIC COMPANY 



DATES COMMENTS 



1945 City signs contract with PG&E for supplemental 

power and support services. (Contract expires 
1987, per amendments.) 

1973 City signs power sales contracts with Districts. 

Sold total output of Hetch Hetchy Project as 
"firm" power. 

Nov. 1973 OPEC oil crisis escalated market rates. Over 
next several years City derived substantial 
revenues from PG&E "assigned customers." 

1978 City unsuccessfully litigates with Districts to 
raise rates for power. 

1979 Airlines unsuccessfully sue City re power of PUC 

t o set rates. 

July, 1980 Hetch Hetchy solicits 15 public agencies for 
interest in purchase of Hetch Hetchy power. 

1981 Hetch Hetchy consultant, Auslam & Associates, 

recommended Districts, Western Area Power 
Administration (WAPA) as potential customers. 

1981-19821/ PG&E informs City that next PG&E contract would 

be on same terms as current contract, but without 
assigned customers. 

1981-1982 City negotiates with Districts on basis of PG&E 
representations . 

1983 PG&E changes contract parameters and informs City 

that if City negotiates firm power sales 
contracts, City must pay for firming services. 
(See 1981-82.) PG&E elects to contract directly 
with Districts for support services. 

PG&E discovers failure to escalate rate base from 
1973. Cost to PG&E of approximately $4 
mi llion/year . 



i/ In late 1981 or early 1982, PG&E orally informed Dean 
Coffey - exact date unknown. 



15 



DATES 



Attachment 1 - page 1 of 1 



COMMENTS 



1983 



Districts discuss purchase of firm power from 
City. Districts will purchase additional power 
elsewhere . 



Late 1983 



Districts contend Hetch Hetchy not firm power so 
would pay us "dump power" (5-7 mills). Iletch 
Hetchy discusses firming with PG&E. City 
negotiates with Districts concerning firm power 
rates . 



1984 Auslam and Associates' report recommends sale 

price of between 30-40 mills/kwh based upon 
amounts of power available from Pacific Northwest 
and Southwest. 

Aug. 1984 MID prepared to sign contract with City; breaks 
away from TID. Proposed contract at 4 mills. 

Sept. 1984 Rep. Tony Coelho's introduces legislation for TID 
to compel City power sales at "cost." 
Legislation passes House of Representatives. 
Sen. Wilson objects on procedural grounds. City 
negotiates with Districts, meets with Rep. 
Coelho. Coellio outlines terms for agreement 
including: 30-year contract, price of 23 mills, 
District priority to power, right to use excess 
Hetch Hetchy transmission and capacity, and other 
conditions . 

Sept. 1984 City and Districts sign "principles." 

May, 1985 Board of Supervisors approves 2-1/2 year "Interim 
Agreements" with Districts. City to sell bulk of 
power above City's municipal needs to Districts 
for 30 years, at 36.25 mills (price includes 
capacity charge), plus escalation, and other 
"Coelho" terms. 

June, 1985 Prior contracts with Districts expire. Replaced 
by Interim Agreement. 

July, 1985 City and Districts sign "Amplified Principles." 

Dec. 1987 PG&E 1945 contract, as amended, expires. 

Jan. 1988 "Extension Agreement" with Districts becomes 

effective. Present agreement with PG&E becomes 
effective. 

Feb. 1988 Board of Supervisors hearing on power contracts. 

April, 1988 Long Term Agreements with Districts become 
effective. 

1470P/4 



16 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 4, 1992 

Item 3 - File 100-92-9 

This item is a hearing to consider the City's efforts to secure anticipated 
revenues and fund transfers needed to balance the 1992-93 fiscal year budget for 
the City and County of San Francisco. 

On October 27, 1992 a joint report was issued by the Mayor's Budget Office, 
the Controller and the Budget Analyst on the status of matters which are still 
pending action to balance the FY 1992-93 budget. These matters include the 
following: 

Airport Advance - ($25 million) Ms. Angela Gittens of the Airport reports that 
the airlines are meeting on November 6, 1992 to further discuss this matter. 
November 12, 1992 is the deadline for all 19 airlines to individually submit their 
approved agreements to the Airport regarding the $25 million advance to the City. 
Ms. Gittens indicates that, thus far, ten of the 19 airlines have unofficially agreed to 
the proposed arrangements. According to Ms. Gittens, the airlines are currently 
considering revisions to the proposed agreement, but as of the writing of this report, 
the specific revisions were not available. 

PUC Equity Transfers and Land Sale - ($7.2 million) These PUC funds 
include equity transfers from the Water Department ($2.5 million), Hetch Hetchy 
($2.5 million) and the revenues from the sale of Water Department property to the 
Olympic Club ($2.2 million). Ms. Jean Mariani of the Mayor's Office reports that she 
will be meeting with the Controller, City Attorney and PUC representatives prior to 
the November 4, 1992 Finance Committee meeting and that she will report orally to 
the Finance Committee regarding the outcome of these discussions. 

Port Transfer - ($1 million) The FY 1992-93 budget approved by the Board of 
Supervisors already includes the $1 million transfer from the Port to the City's 
General Fund. However, the City Attorney has raised some questions regarding the 
legality of this transfer of funds, and is currently reviewing this issue. The City 
Attorney is anticipated to issue an opinion on this matter, in the immediate future. 

On October 27, 1992, the Chair of the Finance Committee wrote a letter to 
Mayor Jordan requesting that these budget matters proposed by the Mayor as part 
of the 1992-93 budget be expedited by the Mayor's Office to enable the City's 1992- 
93 budget to be balanced. 

The Controller's Office indicates that these matters need to be resolved by 
mid-November, 1992, in order to fully capture these revenue transfers by December 
31, 1992. Ms. Mariani indicates that if these funds are not available for the 1992-93 
General Fund, alternative budget reductions in MUNI and other General Fund 
departmental budgets would likely be necessary. 



BOARD OF S UPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

17 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 4, 1992 

Item 4 - File 38-92-25 

Note: This item was continued by the Finance Committee at its meeting of 
October 28, 1992. 



Department: 
Item: 

Amount: 
Description: 



Comments: 



Recreation and Park Department 

Resolution accepting a cash gift of $5,480 from Wells 
Fargo Bank, for publication of the Recreation and Park 
Department Summer Activities Brochure. 

$5,480 

The Recreation and Park Department reports that Wells 
Fargo Bank has donated a $5,480 cash gift to fund the 
publication of the Department's 1992 summer activities 
brochure. The Recreation and Park Department advises 
that the $5,480 donation, which has already been accepted 
and expended by the Department, helped to fund the 
publication of approximately 70,000 brochures, which 
were distributed to San Francisco schools, libraries and 
community agencies. The total cost of these brochures 
was $13,882 with the balance of $8,402 funded by General 
Fund monies ($5,402), Pier 39 ($2,000) and McKesson 
Foundation ($1,000). 

According to Ms. Diane Palacio, of the Recreation and 
Park Department, the $5,480 charitable donation by Wells 
Fargo Bank represented a good will effort on the part of 
the bank. 

1. As noted above, the Department has already accepted 
and expended the $5,480. Therefore, the proposed 
legislation should be amended to authorize the 
Department to accept the gift retroactively. Ms. Palacio 
advises that the Department did not previously request 
authorization from the Board of Supervisors for the 
acceptance of this gift due to an unintentional 
administrative oversight. 

2. The Department is not requesting authorization to 
accept the $2,000 from Pier 39 and the $1,000 from 
McKesson Foundation because under Administrative 
Code Section 10.116, the Board of Supervisors authorizes 
City departments to accept cash gifts which do not exceed 
$5,000. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

18 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 4, 1992 

Recommendation: Amend the proposed resolution to authorize the 

Department to accept the gift retroactively, and approve 
the resolution as amended. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

19 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 4, 1992 



Item 5 - File 64-92-24 



Departments: 

Item: 
Location: 
Purpose of Lease: 

Lessor 

No.ofSq.Ftand 
Cost per Month: 

Annual Cost: 

Term of Lease: 

Source of Funds: 

Utilities 
Provided By: 

Comments: 



Real Estate 

Mayor's Office of Children, Youth and their Families 

Resolution authorizing a new, four year lease. 

Suite 260, 10 United Nations Plaza 

Office space for the Mayor's Office of Children, Youth and 
their Families. 

Ten United Nations Plaza Associates 



$1,875 monthly rent for approximately 1,500 sq. ft. or 
approximately $1.25 per sq. ft. per month 

$22,500 

October 1, 1992 through September 30, 1996 (four years) 

1992-93 Children's Fund budget 

Lessee - monthly rent includes cost of gas, electricity, water, 
scavenger and janitorial 

1. The lessor, Ten United Nations Plaza Associates, will 
perform site alterations at their own expense in preparation 
for the occupancy by the Mayor's Office of Children, Youth 
and their Families. 

2. According to the terms of the proposed lease, continuation 
of the proposed lease beyond the current fiscal year (1992-93) 
through September 30, 1996 would be subject to appropriation 
of funding for lease payments in the Children's Fund budgets 
for those future years. 

3. After subtracting the 200 square feet of space occupied by 
the conference room, the remaining 1,300 square feet of space 
to be leased would provide an average of approximately 217 
square feet of space for each of the six staff persons currently 
in the Mayor's Office of Children, Youth and their Families. 
Mr. Phil Aissen of the Real Estate Department reports that 
the request for space from the Mayor's Office of Children, 
Youth and their Families to the Real Estate Department 
indicated that the fiscal year 1992-93 staff would be seven and 
would grow to ten by fiscal year 1993-94, in addition to the 
need for a conference room to hold meetings with community 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

20 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 4, 1992 

groups. Based on a staff of ten persons and after deducting 
the 200 square feet for the conference room, the average 
square feet per staff member would be 130 square feet. 

4. Beginning January 1, 1994, the monthly rent shall be 
adjusted each calendar year for any increases in certain 
operating costs over and above the amounts in the first year of 
the lease for work performed at or for the benefit of the 
building. Such increases are passed through to all tenants of 
the building. The lessee's share of the increases in operating 
costs (such as building maintenance and security, insurance 
and property taxes) is 2.19 percent of the cost increases based 
on the lessee's relative share of space that the lessee occupies 
in the building (1,500 square feet divided by the total usable 
office space of the building, 68,500 square feet). The City 
Attorney's Office has prepared an attachment to the lease 
document that lists the operating costs (such as advertising, 
promotions, signs that benefit the owner or other tenants and 
tax penalties incurred by the lessor due to negligence) that 
must be excluded from the operating costs that may be passed 
through to the lessee. Mr. Aissen advises that the City's 
other leases of space at 10 United Nations Plaza (such as the 
Mayor's Office of Housing and the Mayor's Office of 
Community Development) include this same provision for the 
pass through of increases in certain operating costs. 
According to Real Estate, the provision to pass through 
increases over and above the amounts of certain operating 
costs incurred in the first year of the lease is necessary to 
protect the lessor from runaway increases in costs that 
benefit the lessee. 

5. Prior to July 1, 1992 the single position of the Mayor's 
Office of Children, Youth and their Families occupied space 
in the Mayor's Office of Community Development offices at 10 
United Nations Plaza on a temporary basis until creation of 
the Children's Fund and negotiation of a lease for the staff to 
administer the Children's Fund. The Mayor's Office of 
Children, Youth and their Families has been occupying this 
space since July 1, 1992 on a month-to-month temporary 
lease basis. As noted above, the proposed lease began on 
October 1, 1992. The proposed lease should be amended in 
order to authorize the proposed lease retroactively to October 
1, 1992. 

Recommendation: Amend the proposed resolution to authorize the proposed 
lease retroactive to October 1, 1992, and approve the proposed 
resolution as amended. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

21 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 4, 1992 

Items 6 and 7 - Files 97-92-61 and 172-92-15 



Departments: 
Items: 



Location: 

Purpose of 
Purchase: 



Seller: 

Developer: 
No. of Sq. Ft: 



Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) 

File 172-92-15, a proposed ordinance, contains the following 
provisions: 

(1) Approving and authorizing the execution and delivery of 
an agreement of purchase and sale for real estate (including 
certain indemnities and the release of the seller contained 
therein); 

(2) Approving and authorizing (a) an assignment of purchase 
for sale of real estate; (b) a facilities lease (including certain 
indemnities contained therein); (c) a trust agreement 
(including certain indemnities contained therein); and (d) an 
official statement; 

(3) Authorizing the distribution of an official notice inviting 
bids in connection with the City and County of San Francsico 
Certificates of Participation (1660 Mission Street Project) 
Series 1993; 

(4) Authorizing the Chief Administrative Officer to fix rents 
to be charged and to submit budgets for approval; 

(5) Authorizing and ratifying execution of documents 
reasonably necessary for the execution, delivery and sale of 
the Certificates of Participation; and 

(6) Adopting findings pursuant to City Planning Code Section 
101.1, all in connection with the acquisition and leasing of the 
1660 Mission Street property. 

File 97-92-61 is a proposed ordinance amending the San 
Francisco Administrative Code by adding Chapter 10F 
thereof to establish a surcharge on plan, permit, 
environmental review, and related fees to recover costs for 
acquiring office space at 1660 Mission Street. 

1660 Mission Street 



To purchase a building as a location for a "One Stop Permit 
Shop" for building permits, i.e., to consolidate Bureau of 
Building Inspection, Planning Department, and Fire 
Department permit processes at a single location. 

Paul B. Andrew, bankruptcy trustee appointed by the court to 
oversee the asset 

The Derringer Group 

97,536 gross square feet; 66,987 net rentable square feet 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

22 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 4, 1992 



Total Cost: 



Source of Funds: 



Description: 



$5,700,000 

($85.09 per net rentable square foot; however, see Comment 11 

regarding an additional cost of $3.5 million for tenant 

improvements) 

Surcharge on plan, permit, environmental review, and 
related fees, collected by various departments, to support debt 
service for Certificates of Participation 

Currently, persons or companies wishing to build or remodel 
in San Francisco must visit up to four locations to receive 
permit approval: City-owned 450 McAllister, which houses 
the Department of City Planning, the DPW Bureau of 
Building Inspection, and certain Fire Department employees 
with permit responsibility; City Hall, which houses the DPW 
Division of Surveys and Maps; leased space at 524 Golden 
Gate, which houses employees of the Bureau of Building 
Inspection responsible for Plumbing and Electrical Permits; 
and leased space at Fox Plaza, which houses the code 
enforcement portion of the DPW Bureau of Building 
Inspection. 

The proposed ordinance would support the purchase of 1660 
Mission Street, an office building containing 66,987 rentable 
square feet of unfinished space, at a cost of approximately 
$5.7 million. The building would be used to establish a "One 
Stop Permit Shop" (i.e., to consolidate Bureau of Building 
Inspection, Planning Department, and Fire Department 
permit processes at a single location instead of in the four 
current locations). 1660 Mission Street was completed to core 
and shell condition in mid- 1991 and is a six-story steel frame 
office building with a one level subterranean garage. 
Included in the purchase price of this building is an adjacent 
vacant lot containing approximately 5,080 square feet, which 
will be used for parking. 

The proposed purchase of 1660 Mission Street is to be 
financed with Series 1993 Certificates of Participation. 
Certificates of Participation are proportionate interests in the 
lease-purchase of property, which are sold to investors. The 
investors would receive a return on their investment through 
the lease payments made by the City. The City would assign 
its rights under the Purchase and Sale Agreement to a 
trustee, who would issue the Certificates of Participation. 
The City would then be obligated to make lease payments to 
the trustee to repay the holders of the Certificates of 
Participation. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

23 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 4, 1992 



To support these Certificates of Participation, the CAO 
proposes to implement a surcharge on the following 
categories of fees: 

(a) Plan Review Fees; 

(b) Building Code Fees; 

(c) Public Works fees; 

(d) Planning Code fees; 

(e) Administrative Code fees. 

All of these fees would be increased, through a surcharge, as 
follows: 

(1) 3 percent for the period commencing July 1, 1993 through 
June 30, 1995; 

(2) a total of 4.5 percent for the period commencing July 1, 
1995 through June 30, 2000; and 

(3) a total of 6.5 percent for the period commencing July 1, 
2000 through June 30, 2005. 

Effective July 1, 2005, the surcharge would expire. 

The exact amount of the increase in fees, representing a 
surcharge, would vary depending on the size and complexity 
of the project, Mr. Larry Litchfield of the Bureau of Building 
Inspection reports. Based on estimated average sizes for 
small, medium and large jobs, Mr. Don McConlogue of the 
BBI reports that this surcharge would result in the following 
dollar costs: 

(1) 53 percent of permits consist of small residential projects, 
with an average value of $5,800. Such projects would result in 
a surcharge of $4.53 in the first period; $6.80 in the second 
period; and $9.82 in the third period; 

(2) 42 percent of permits consist of medium sized residential 
or commercial projects, with an average value of $47,000. 
Such projects would result in a surcharge of $42.83 in the 
first period; $64.25 in the second period; and $92.80 in the 
third period; 

(3) .1 percent of permits consist of large commercial projects, 
with an average value of $402,000. Such a project would result 
in a surcharge of $198.88 in the first period, $298.32 in the 
second period; and $430.90 in the third period. 

Mr. McConlogue reports that the remaining approximately 5 
percent of permits include miscellaneous projects whose fees 
are consistent with the fees noted above. 

BOARD OF SI IPERVLSORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

24 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 4, 1992 

Fees are based on the valuation of a construction project, Mr. 
McConlogue advises. According to Mr. Fred Weiner of the 
CAO's Office, these surcharges are structured so as to result 
in revenues equal to the total debt service over the financing 
period, including the purchase price of the building, at $5.7 
million, and tenant improvements, at $3.5 million, for a total 
of $9.2 million plus financing costs of approximately $1.87 
million, for a total of $11.07 million plus interest. 

Comments: 1. According to Mr. Litchfield, 1660 Mission includes six 

floors, which would be used as follows: 

First Floor: 

to include 95 parking spaces, to be made available for public 
parking; and public information booths where seven 
employees would provide information regarding the status of 
an application, code interpretations, zoning and Fire Code 
information, etc. 

Second Floor: 

to include the permit center and the construction services 

center. 

Third and Fourth Floor: 

to include the building, electrical, plumbing, housing and 

code enforcement sections, including all inspectors. 

Fifth Floor: 

to include the ad'ministrative offices for the various applicable 

departments. 

Sixth Floor: 

to include offices for agency heads, Planning Commission 
meeting rooms, employee meeting rooms, other meeting 
room space, and an employee lunch room. (Note: The Budget 
Analyst questions the necessity of a lunch room.) 

2. Mr. Weiner advises that approximately 300 employees, now 
occupying the four different locations noted in the description 
above, would relocate to 1660 Mission Street. According to Mr. 
DeLucchi, Director of Property, 450 McAllister consists of 
approximately 40,000 square foot, while the remaining three 
locations consist of approximately 8,300 square feet, for a total 
of 48,300 square feet. 1660 Mission Street contains 66,987 
rentable square feet, representing an increase of 18,687 
square feet, or approximately 39 percent. Each employee 
would occupy an average of 223 square feet, including a 
portion of public meeting rooms and interview rooms, 
whereas presently each employee occupies an average of 146 
square feet. Mr. DeLucchi advises that current conditions are 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

25 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 4, 1992 



overcrowded, and that the new space would also include 
meeting and interview rooms not currently in place. 

3. Mr. Litchfield anticipates a 20 percent improvement in 
efficiency as a result of the proposed "One Stop Permit Shop." 
This 20 percent improvement in efficiency is based on the 
experiences of Phoenix, Arizona, and San Diego, California, 
where the consolidation of permit processing has resulted in 
a 20 percent reduction in permit processing time. However, 
there is no documentation as to the percentage of efficiency 
that would be achieved in San Francsico. Mr. Litchfield 
advises that, based on meetings with permit applicants, most 
permit applicants who have been in contact with the 
departments have indicated a willingness to pay increased 
fees in exchange for reduced permit processing time. 
However, there is no documentation as to whether such 
applicants, who have been in contact with the various 
departments, are representative of all of the applicants on an 
annual basis. Currently, permit processing time takes from 
one day for small remodeling projects, such as kitchen 
remodeling, reroofing, or window replacement, to 90 days for 
large construction projects. 

4. Mr. Litchfield advises that because of the increased 
efficiency, the various departments would be able to process a 
larger number of permits in the proposed new building with 
the same number of employees. Therefore, the proposed new 
building would accomodate any growth in permit requests in 
future years, Mr. Litchfield reports. 

5. According to Mr. Litchfield, if the proposed "One Stop 
Permit Shop" is established at 1660 Mission, the permit 
application process would be restructured. Instead of 
applicants submitting applications in writing which are later 
reviewed by permit processors, applicants would meet with 
permit processors to review applications in person. This new 
process is anticipated to result in substantial increased 
efficiencies beyond the anticipated 20 percent increased 
efficiency noted above, Mr. Litchfield reports. 

6. Mr. Litchfield reports that, in accordance with a 1989 
recommendation by the Budget Analyst, permit processing 
has already been somewhat consolidated into a Construction 
Services Center at 450 McAllister. The Construction Services 
Center consists of two City Planning employees, two Fire 
Department employees, and two Surveys and Mapping 
employees who provide information to the public. Mr. 
Litchfield advises that this consolidation has resulted in the 
ability to issue permits over the counter for small residential 
improvement projects. However, due to space limitations at 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

26 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 4, 1992 



450 McAllister, most employees who carry out permit 
processing functions are located on a number of different 
floors. As of the writing of this report, the Budget Analyst has 
not been provided with any documentation regarding 
increased efficiency as a result of the Construction Services 
Center. 

7. According to Mr. Weiner, savings from terminating the 
lease at 524 Golden Gate and at Fox Plaza would total 
approximately $128,868 per year, including $46,068 for Fox 
Plaza and $82,800 at 524 Golden Gate. Mr. Weiner advises 
that these leases will terminate prior to the proposed 
occupation of 1660 Mission Street. Future additional rental 
costs would be avoided when the employees were moved to 
1660 Mission Street from the City-owned 450 McAllister, 
because this would enable City Hall employees to relocate to 
450 McAllister during seismic renovations at City Hall, 
instead of relocating to rented spaces, Mr. Litchfield advises. 

8. Mr. Weiner reports that the CAO had previously 
considered constructing a new building on the City-owned 
450 McAllister site and adjoining lots. However, Mr. Weiner 
advises that the cost of constructing a new building at that 
site would be approximately $60 to $70 million. That site is 
now proposed as a possible location for a new courthouse, to 
be funded from the Courthouse Construction Fund, Ms. Kate 
Harrison of the Superior Court advises. 

9. Mr. Litchfield reports that several alternative locations 
were investigated for possible rental rather than purchase, 
including the Coca Cola Building on 11th Street, 614 Van 
Ness at Golden Gate. However, these buildings would be 
costly to rent. In addition, these buildings are not seismically 
sound or handicapped accessible, and would therefore 
require substantial improvements, Mr. Litchefield reports. 
According to Mr. DeLucchi, 1660 Mission Street was 
constructed in accordance with the seismic safety standards 
as set forth in the 1979 Uniform Building Code, as mandated 
by the Board of Supervisors in January, 1984. The building is 
also handicapped accessible, in accordance with Title 24 of 
the State Code. 

10. According to Mr. DeLucchi, construction on 1660 Mission 
began four years ago. One year ago, after the Darringer 
Group declared bankruptcy, the building came into the 
jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court. The City has negotiated 
to pay $5,700,000 for 1660 Mission, less outstanding fees owed 
to the City in the amount of $455,000 for affordable housing. 
These fees would be paid by the City from an escrow account. 
The seller would receive the remaining $5,245,000. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

27 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 4, 1992 



11. If the proposed ordinance is approved, Mr. Litchfield 
anticipates that tenant improvements would be completed 
and the building could be occupied by January 1, 1994. Such 
tenant improvements would cost approximately $3.5 million. 
The estimated $3.5 million in tenant improvements would be 
in addition to the proposed purchase price of $5.7 million, for 
a total acquisition price for 1660 Mission Street of $9.2 million, 
which would be paid from the Certificates of Participation 
plus interest. Tenant improvements consist of constructing 
walls, partitions, installing heat, ventilation, and air 
conditioning, carpeting, etc. Moving costs are included in the 
budget for tenant improvements, Mr. Weiner reports. The 
funds for these tenant improvements would come from the 
sale of the Certificates of Participation noted above, which 
would be repaid from the fee surcharges. 

12. According to Mr. DeLucchi, tenant improvements would 
need to be completed at any facility occupied by the City. The 
cost of such improvements would vary based on the 
negotiations with the seller or renter, according to Mr. 
DeLucchi. 

13. Mr. DeLucchi advises that the cost to the City of 
constructing a new building comparable to the present 1660 
Mission Street building is estimated to be approximately 
$11,803,900, (including approximately $10,725,000 (based on 
$110 per gross square foot times approximately 97,500 square 
feet) for the building alone, plus approximately $1,078,800 for 
the land (based on $60 per square foot times 17,980 total 
square feet of land)) or over twice the cost of the proposed 
acquisition of 1660 Mission Street for $5,700,000. Tenant 
improvements, which are budgeted for 1660 Mission at 
approximately $3.5 million in addition to the purchase price, 
would be in addition to construction and land costs for a new 
building. Therefore, the estimated cost of constructing a new 
building is approximately $15,303,900 plus interest 
(assuming that tenant improvement costs for a new building 
would be $3.5 million), or approximately $6,103,900, or 66 
percent more than purchasing 1660 Mission Street, which is 
estimated to cost $9.2 million, including tenant 
improvements. Financing costs for this new building would 
be higher than comparable costs to acquire 1660 Mission 
because the total Certificates of Participation issue would be 
higher. Mr. Weiner advises that the Derringer Group and 
related financing institutions invested approximately $17 
million in the construction of 1660 Mission Street. 

14. Mr. Litchfield advises that the City's permit processing 
procedures are anticipated to be improved because a new 

BOARD OF SI JPKRVLSORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

28 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 4, 1992 

employee with inter-departmental authority is being hired to 
coordinate permit processing. A new classification for this 
position has been approved by the Civil Service Commission 
and has been included in the FY 1992-93 budget. The new 
position will also be the person responsible for coordinating 
the Construction Services Center. If the proposed ordinance 
is approved, this new position would be instrumental in 
laying out and formalizing the permit processing plans at 
1660 Mission Street, Mr. Litchfield reports. 

15. The Budget Analyst notes that the departments have no 
documentation supporting anticipated increased efficiency or 
reduced rental costs. Therefore, the Budget Analyst 
recommends that, if the Board of Supervisors approves this 
proposed ordinance, the various departments be required to 
present an annual report to the Board of Supervisors 
documenting increased efficiency, reduced rental costs, and 
any other relevant information as a result of the proposed 
building purchase. 

16. According to Mr. Weiner, the CAO anticipates 
introducing an Amendment of the Whole for the proposed 
ordinance (File 172-92-15) that would allow the CAO to 
negotiate the sale of the Certificates of Participation to an 
underwriter, if such a negotiation would be in the best 
interests of the City. However, the CAO currently anticipates 
competitively bidding the Certificates of Participation unless 
the market changes significantly over the next few months. 

Recommendations: (1) Amend the proposed ordinance to require annual reports 
doumenting improvements in efficiency, reduced rental 
costs, and any other relevant information as a result of the 
proposed building purchase. (File 172-92-15) 

(2) Approval of the proposed ordinance, as amended, is a 
policy matter for the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

29 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 4, 1992 

Item 8 -File 65-92-11 



Departments: 
Item: 



Location: 



Purpose of Lease: 



Lessee: 

No. of Sq. Ft and 
Cost per Month: 



% Increase Over 
Prior Yean 



Term of Lease: 



Comments: 



Real Estate 

San Francisco Clean Water Program 

Ordinance authorizing and approving a renewal lease of 
City-owned property at 1800 Oakdale Avenue (Southeast 
Community Facility, Northwest corner of Phelps Street and 
Oakdale Avenue) to the San Francisco Community College 
District to operate a satellite campus of the City College of San 
Francisco 

1800 Oakdale Avenue, commonly known as the Southeast 
Community Center 

Space for a skills center consisting of classrooms, a library 
and other educational facility support services for the San 
Francisco Community College District for use as a satellite 
campus of the City College of San Francisco 

San Francisco Community College District 



$13,104.18 monthly rent for approximately 35,800 sq. ft. or 
approximately $0.37 per sq. ft. per month 



Annual Revenue: $157,250 



None - The Real Estate Department states that because of 
budget constraints, the San Francisco Community College 
District cannot afford an increase in rent for fiscal year 1992- 
93 (the proposed lease does provide for three percent annual 
increases in rent beginning July 1, 1993). 

From date of lease execution through June 30, 1995 (two years 
and seven months if lease is finally approved effective 
December 1, 1992). Presently, the lease is on a month-to- 
month basis. 

1. The San Francisco Community College District has 
occupied the Southeast Community Center since 1986 under 
a five year lease that expired on October 30, 1991 and on a 
month-to-month basis since October 31, 1991. 

2. On July 1 of each year beginning in 1993 the rental amount 
will be increased by three percent. 



BOARD OF SU PERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

30 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 4, 1992 



3. A provision of the proposed lease requires the Clean Water 
Program to make modifications to the Southeast Community 
Center space that is occupied by the City College to meet 
disabled access requirements as required by the American 
Disabilities Act. The Clean Water Program estimates the 
cost of such improvements will total approximately $48,000. 
Funding for the improvements will be included in the 1993-94 
Clean Water Program budget. The San Francisco 
Community College District will not reimburse any of these 
costs which are the responsibility of the building owner. 

4. The City will provide utility services including gas, water, 
electricity, heating, ventilation, air conditioning, parking, 
landscaping, and sewer. The San Francisco Community 
College District will continue to reimburse the City for 85 
percent of the total utility services costs for the whole 
building. The 85 percent rate for reimbursement was 
negotiated based on the 35,800 square feet of space occupied by 
the City College compared to the total area of the Southeast 
Community Center of approximately 42,500 square feet 
(approximately 85 percent). The Head Start Child Care 
Program and the Senior Escort Program occupy the 
remaining 6,700 square feet of space at the center. The San 
Francisco Community College District reimbursed the City 
$12,448 for water and sewage service in fiscal year 1991-92, 
according to Mr. Alex Pitcher of the Clean Water Program. 
Mr. Pitcher was not able to provide the amount of 
reimbursements for electricity or other utilities, as of the 
writing of this report. The San Francisco Community 
College District is wholly responsible for security costs for the 
entire facility. 

5. The Southeast Co mmuni ty Center was constructed in 1986 
to mitigate the construction of the Southeast Treatment 
Plant. The mitigation order issued by the State Water 
Resources Control Board requires that a skills center be 
located at the Southeast Community Center. Mr. John Roddy 
of the City Attorney's Office states that the mitigation order 
requirement that a skills center occupy the facility has been 
met by locating the City College of San Francisco satellite 
campus at the Southeast Community Center. 

6. The Real Estate Department reports that although the 
proposed rental amount is below the fair market value of rent 
for the area, the San Francisco Community College District 
provides a public benefit in accordance with the designated 
use for the facility. According to the August 7, 1992 letter 
from the Real Estate Department to the Budget Analyst 
regarding a new lease for the Head Start Child Care 
Program at the Southeast Community Center (File 65-92-12), 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

31 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 4, 1992 

the fair market value of space at the center is $1.25 per square 
foot per month ($15 per year), or $537,000 annually for the 
35,800 square feet of space occupied by the San Francisco 
Community College District. The proposed annual rent of 
$157,250 is $379,750 or approximately 71 percent less than the 
fair market value of $537,000. Therefore, approval of the 
proposed ordinance is a policy matter for the Board of 
Supervisors. 

7. The Budget Analyst is currently performing a 
management audit of the Clean Water Program that is 
responsible for operation of the Southeast Community 
Center. The audit scope includes an examination of the 
matter of actual rents for the use of space that are less than 
the fair market value of the space. The report to be issued as 
a result of this examination will include recommendations 
regarding the computation of rents for use of space. 

8. Given that the proposed rental rate for the lease is $379,750 
or approximately 71 percent less than fair market value of 
$537,000, the Budget Analyst recommends that the lease with 
the San Francisco Community College District continue on a 
month-to-month basis and that the proposed ordinance, 
which would result in a lease renewal for approximately two 
years and seven months, be continued to the call of the Chair 
until the Budget Analyst's management audit report of the 
Clean Water Program is completed and submitted to the 
Board of Supervisors. The Budget Analyst anticipates 
submitting this management audit to the Board of 
Supervisors in January, 1993. 

Recommendation: The proposed ordinance should be continued to the call of the 
Chair, pending submission to the Board of Supervisors of the 
Budget Analyst's management audit report on the Clean 
Water Program. The lease of space at the Southeast 
Community Center to the San Francisco Community College 
District should continue on a month-to-month basis. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

32 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 4, 1992 

Item 9 - File 124-92-9 

Note: This item was transferred from the Economic and Social Policy 
Committee on October 27, 1992 because of its fiscal impact. 



Department 
Item: 

Description: 



Comments: 



Parking Authority 

Ordinance amending the Traffic Code by amending Section 
32.8.12 thereof, to authorize the removal of the 38 metered 
parking spaces at 1350 Bush Street. 

The metered parking facility at 1350 Bush Street, which will 
become an annex to the new Polk-Bush Garage facility, 
currently contains 38 metered parking spaces on property 
leased from the San Francisco Unified School District. This 
annex will be converted from the existing 38-space metered 
parking facility to a 32-space secured monthly parking 
facility addition to the adjoining Polk-Bush Parking Garage. 
The Polk-Bush Parking Garage has 132 parking spaces, 
which would be increased to 164 parking spaces with the 
addition of 32 parking spaces from the parking annex at 1350 
Bush Street. 

1. Mr. Kevin Hagerty, Director of the Parking Authority, 
advises that the 1350 Bush Street metered parking facility 
generated $16,135 in gross revenues during FY 1991-92, of 
which $3,900 was deducted for the cleaning of the metered 
parking area leaving a net revenue of $12,235. Further, Mr. 
Hagerty reports that the conversion of the existing metered 
parking facility into an annex to the new Polk-Bush Garage 
is estimated to cost approximately $50,000 (previously 
reported to cost $40,000), which would be paid for by 
previously appropriated Off-Street Parking Funds. 

2. Based on a gross revenue of $16,135 in FY 1991-92 from a 
total of 38 meters at the 1350 Bush Street metered parking 
facility, an average of $424.60 was generated annually from 
each meter ($16,135 divided by 38). Further, since the 
metered parking area was in operation six days per week or 
312 days during FY 1991-92, and the average cost per 
metered parking was 30 cents per hour, each meter collected 
an average of $1.36 per day ($424.60 divided by 312 days) and 
the average use per meter was 4.5 hours per day ($1.36 
divided by 30 cents per hour). 

3. As previously noted, the parking annex would have six 
less parking spaces, a reduction from 38 spaces to 32 spaces, 
with the conversion from metered parking to parking as 
part of a new Polk-Bush Garage. Mr. Hagerty advises that 



BOARD OF SU PERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

33 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 4, 1992 



the reduction of six spaces is necessitated by the installation 
of a new gate that is recessed at the current entrance on 
Bush Street. The placement of the new gate requires the 
removal of six existing parking spaces. 

4. Mr. Hagerty also advises that the 38 meters will be 
removed by the Department of Parking and Traffic's meter 
shop as part of their normal duties at the time the contractor 
for the Polk-Bush Garage renovates the annex for the 
additional garage space. Mr. Hagerty estimates that this 
work would begin in approximately three weeks and that the 
conversion would require from four to six weeks to complete. 
The 38 meters will be used to replace broken meters 
throughout the City as needed. 

5. Mr. Hagerty also reports that merchants in the 
immediate vicinity of the proposed parking annex strongly 
support the conversion of the existing metered parking 
facility into a monthly parking facility because loitering, 
vandalism and other negative street activities are currently 
taking place at the existing metered facility. With the 
proposed conversion from metered parking, a new monthly 
rental parking facility annex would eliminate transient 
parking on a daily basis. 

6. On August 17, 1992, the Board of Supervisors adopted 
Ordinance 273-92 (File 47-92-5) authorizing a management 
agreement with a private garage operator to manage the 
Polk-Bush Parking Garage. The management agreement 
(after deduction of parking tax and payment of $12,000 
annual rent for the annex property) would allow the garage 
operator to receive a monthly management fee (based on the 
monthly cost to operate the garage and to be adjusted 
annually according to the Consumer Price Index) paid from 
the gross parking revenues and five percent of the garage 
gross revenues exceeding $300,000 per year. The balance of 
revenues would accrue to the City's Off-Street Parking 
Fund. 

7. On October 13, 1992, the Board of Supervisors approved 
Resolution No. (File 47-92-5.1), which awarded management 
of the Polk-Bush Garage to the firm of City Parking. 

8. The Parking Authority estimates that the Polk-Bush 
Garage and annex will initially generate gross annual 
revenues of $275,000. The Parking Authority estimates that 
$55,000 of the $275,000 would be deducted for parking tax, 
based on a 25 percent parking tax, leaving a balance of 
$220,000 (1.25 divided by $275,000). Of the remaining 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

34 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 4, 1992 



$220,000, the Parking Authority estimates that $12,000 would 
be paid to the San Francisco Unified School District for 
rental of the annex property, the management fee of $156,948 
($13,079 monthly) would be paid to City Parking, and a 
balance of $51,052 less the operator's expenses for property 
insurance and possessory interest tax would accrue to the 
City's Off-Street Parking Fund. Mr. Hagerty states that 
estimates of the costs of property insurance and possessory 
interest tax have not been made because this is the first time 
that a management agreement has been used and because 
there are no other garages with comparable characteristics 
to the Polk-Bush Garage that can be used as a basis for these 
estimates. In Mr. Hagerty's opinion, these costs for 
property insurance and possessory interest tax will not 
exceed the estimated balance of $51,052 net income. 

9. This item was approved by the Economic and Social Policy 
Committee on October 27, 1992 and transferred to the 
Finance Committee because of its fiscal impact. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed ordinance. 



BOARD OF SI JPERVLSORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

35 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 4, 1992 

Item 10 - File 161-92-7 

Note: This item was transferred from the Economic and Social Policy Committee on 
October 27, 1992 because of its fiscal impact. 

Department San Francisco Redevelopment Agency (SFRA) 

Item: Resolution amending Resolution No. 177-90, designating and 

describing the South of Market Survey Area by adding 
additional land. 

Description; In response to the Loma Prieta earthquake, on March 12, 

1990 the Board of Supervisors designated a portion of the 
South of Market area, that had sustained earthquake-related 
damage, as a Redevelopment Survey Area that was 
subsequently called the South of Market Earthquake Recovery 
Redevelopment Project Area. As the name suggests, the 
SFRA is limited to redeveloping earthquake-damaged 
properties in the South of Market Earthquake Recovery 
Redevelopment Project Area. The proposed resolution would 
amend the South of Market Earthquake Survey Area to 
expand the boundaries to include properties that were not 
directly damaged by the earthquake. 

Although not the subject of the proposed resolution, the SFRA 
is ultimately proposing to amend the South of Market 
Earthquake Recovery Redevelopment Plan to convert it to a 
more conventional Redevelopment Plan and to expand the 
SFRA's revitalization efforts beyond properties that were 
directly damaged by the Loma Prieta earthquake. The SFRA 
has not yet developed a proposed amendment to the 
Redevelopment Project Area Plan for the proposed amended 
survey area because the Board of Supervisors must first 
amend the survey area before a plan can be developed. 

As outlined on the attached map, the proposed expansion of 
the South of Market Redevelopment Survey Area would 
include the area between Seventh, Harrison, Folsom and 
Columbia Square Streets and the area between Clementina, 
Fifth, Harrison and parcels just south of Fourth Streets. 

According to Mr. Erwin Tanjuaquio of the SFRA, if the 
proposed resolution and the subsequent revised South of 
Market Earthquake Recovery Redevelopment Project Area 
Plan are approved, the SFRA intends to pursue construction 
of affordable housing in the proposed expanded project area. 
As the attached map illustrates, there are several potential 
sites to construct affordable housing. In addition, the SFRA 
would pursue economic development activities such as 



BOARD OF SU PERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

36 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 4, 1992 

providing small business loans and grants to business 
owners located in the proposed expanded project area. 

Comments: l.Mr. Bob Gamble of the Redevelopment Agency advises that 

the proposed South of Market Earthquake Recovery 
Redevelopment Project Area expansion would, if approved by 
the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors, eventually allow the 
SFRA to issue additional tax increment bonds and claim 
additional tax increment revenues from the South of Market 
Earthquake Recovery Redevelopment Project Area. However, 
the proposed resolution would only amend the survey area 
and, as previously noted, not approve a revised 
Redevelopment Project Area Plan. A South of Market 
Earthquake Recovery Redevelopment Project Area Plan 
would outline generally the projects which the SFRA would 
undertake, and would contain the estimated costs of such 
projects and the expected sources of revenues. As such, the 
fiscal impact of expanding the South of Market Earthquake 
Recovery Redevelopment Project Area would not be known 
until a revised South of Market Earthquake Recovery 
Redevelopment Project Area Plan has been completed and 
submitted to the Board of Supervisors. 

However, if the proposed resolution and subsequent 
Redevelopment Project Plan are approved, the proposed 
expansion would most likely result in a fiscal impact to the 
City of greater than $10,000 annually because the SFRA 
would have a greater amount of potential tax increment 
revenues to claim to repay potential tax increment bonds. To 
have a fiscal impact of greater than $10,000 the SFRA would 
have to issue tax increment bonds of $163,000 based on tax 
increment revenues from the proposed expanded areas. In 
FY 1992-93, the Agency will issue approximately $3.7 million 
in tax increment bonds for the South of Market Earthquake 
Recovery Redevelopment Project Area. Thus, it is likely that 
if the proposed resolution and subsequent Redevelopment 
Project Plan are approved, the proposed expansion would 
result in a fiscal impact to the City of greater than $10,000 
annually. 

2. This item was approved by the Economic and Social Policy 
Committee on October 27, 1992 and transferred to the Finance 
Committee because of its fiscal impact. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

37 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 4, 1992 



Recommendation: The proposed resolution is a policy matter for the Board of 
Supervisors. 




[arvey M. Rose 



cc: Supervisor Gonzalez 
Supervisor Migden 
Supervisor Hallinan 
President Shelley 
Supervisor Achtenberg 
Supervisor Alioto 
Supervisor Britt 
Supervisor Conroy 
Supervisor Hsieh 
Supervisor Kennedy 
Supervisor Maher 
Clerk of the Board 
Chief Administrative Officer 
Controller 
Jean Mariani 
Barbara Kolesar 
Ted Lakey 



BOARD OF SI JPKRVLSORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Attachment 




39 



h 



CITY AND COUNTY 




BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 



Public Library, (Documents (Dept. 
S¥rm(: Qerry^ptft 

y 

OF SAN FRANCISCO 

DOC!'*" "T. 

NOV 5 1992 



BUDGET ANALYST 

1390 MARKET STREET, SUITE 1025 

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102 • TELEPHONE (415) 554-7642 



SAN FRAN?' > 
PUBLIC Lib if 



November 2, 1992 



Fhii 



TO: Finance Committee 

FROM: Enrage t Analyst nece^\ ^<w</^ „ , 

SUBJECT: November 4, 1992 Finance Committee Meeting 

y REVISED 

Item la - File 101-91-38.4 

Note: This item was continued at the October 28, 1992 Finance Committee 
Meeting. 

Department: Public Library 

Item: Request for release of reserved funds for geotechnical 

services during construction of the new Main Library 

Amount: $106,898 

Source of Funds: 1988 Library Improvement Bonds 

Description: The Board of Supervisors has previously approved a 

supplemental appropriation (File 101-91-38) in the amount of 
$4,015,003 for project services related to the construction of 
the new Main Library. Of the $4,015,003 appropriated, a total 
of $1,529,805 was placed on reserve pending selection of 
contractors and determination of the MBE/WBE status of the 
contractors and contract cost details. Of the $1,529,805 
originally placed on reserve, a total of $549,772 has previously 
been released by the Finance Committee, leaving a balance of 
$980,033 on reserve. 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 4, 1992 



The balance of $980,033 in reserved funding includes $120,000 
for geotechnical services consulting. This item is a request to 
release $106,898 of the $120,000 reserve for geotechnical 
services. 

The geotechnical services consultant would 1) monitor the 
excavation activities for the new Main Library to determine 
that the actual soil conditions encountered during excavation 
are compatible with the design requirements by performing 
and evaluating soil density tests, 2) review and approve the 
shoring design submitted by the construction contractor, 3) 
observe excavation in preparation for the foundation and 4) 
monitor the pile driving associated with shoring and 
foundation work. 

The geotechnical consulting firm of Geo/Resource 
Consultants, Inc., was retained by the construction 
management contractor, O'Brien-Kreitzberg & Associates, 
Inc., as a subcontractor to assist in preparation of the 
Environmental Impact Report. According to Mr. Russ Abel 
of the Department of Public Works, Bureau of Architecture, 
in order to maintain continuity of professional responsibility 
throughout the construction of the new Main Library, it is 
desirable to utilize the same geotechnical consultant for all 
phases of the planning, design and construction of the new 
Main Library. Therefore, Geo/Resource Consultants, Inc., 
will continue as the geotechnical consultant subcontractor 
under the prime contractor, O'Brien-Kreitzberg for the new 
Main Library construction project. 

Geo/Resource Consultants, Inc., is a local business but is not 
an MBE or WBE firm. Geo/Resource Consultants, Inc., has 
estimated the costs for their services totaling $106,898, as 
follows: 

Professional Services: 

Principal Engineer (90 hours @ $120 per hour) $10,800 

Project Engineer (220 hours @ $90 per hour) 19,800 

Staff Engineer (548 hours @ $65 per hour) 35,620 

Support Staff (74 hours @ $40 per hour) 2.960 

Total-Professional Services $69,180 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 4, 1992 



Sub-Subcontracts: 

Shoring Review and Soil Observation $20,000 

Treadwell & Rollo, neither MBE nor WBE, 
Engineer/Scientist rates from $55 to $140 
per hour 

Indicator Piles: 
Institu Tech 6,080 

Neither MBE nor WBE, field work is $165 
per hour and office work is $135 per hour 
Robert Pvke 1.920 

Neither MBE nor WBE, 16 hours at $120 
per hour 
Total-Subcontracts 

Total - Geo/Resource Consultants, Inc. 

O'Brien-Kreitzberg administration of 
Geo/Resource Consultants, Inc., 
subcontract (10 percent per master agreement) 



$28.000 
$97,180 



Lzia 



Total Requested Release of Reserve $106,898 

Comments: 1. According to Mr. Abel, the cost estimates for Shoring 

Review and Soil Observation ($20,000) and for Indicator Piles, 
Institu Tech ($6,080) are not based on estimates of hours of 
work multiplied by hourly rates paid to professional staff. Mr 
Abel indicates that cost estimates for excavation work cannot 
be precise because the scope of work is subject to revision 
depending on conditions that cannot be known until the 
excavation has actually begun. If the costs for the excavation 
work exceed the above estimates, the excesses will be charged 
against the budget for contingencies (see Comment 2, below). 

2. Upon re-reviewing the proposed release of reserved funds, 
Mr. Abel noted that a ten percent contingency was not 
included in the amount originally requested to be released. 
According to Mr. Abel, the unpredictable, actual scope of the 
work to be performed that is dependent upon the work of 
other subcontractors and upon underground conditions that 
will not be known until the excavation is completed requires a 
ten percent contingency in the budget for geotechnical 
services. Therefore, Mr. Abel requests that an additional 
$10,690 (ten percent of $106,898) be released for contingencies 
for a total release of reserved funds of $117,588 ($106,898 plus 
$10,690), which is still within the $120,000 that was budgeted 
and reserved for geotechnical services. 

Recommendation: Release reserved funds in the amount of $117,588 including 
the originally requested amount of $106,898 plus the 
additional $10,690 for contingencies. 

BOARD OF ST TPERVLSORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



y 



*G<15 



n 
*3 



PLEASE NOTE THAT MEETING 
WILL BEGIN AT 12:00 NOON 









4 

CALENDAR 

RECESSED MEETING OF 
FINANCE COMMITTEE 
^^BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 



DOfM iMrMTs DEPT 

NOV 1 3 1992 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



M/sj 

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 1992 - 12:00 NOON 



ROOM 228, CITY HALL 



PRESENT: SUPERVISORS GONZALEZ AND HALLINAN 

ABSENT: SUPERVISOR MIGDEN 

CLERK: GAIL JOHNSON 

NOTE: Copies of the Budget Analyst's Report will be available for review on the 
counter in the Office of the Clerk of the Board, Room 235, City Hall, 
10:00 a.m., the date of the meeting. 



File 97-92-61 . [Fee Surcharges] Ordinance amending Administrative Code by adding 
Chapter 10F, to establish a surcharge on plan, permit, environmental review, and 
related fees to recover costs for acquiring office space at 1660 Mission Street; 
companion measure to File 172-92-15. (Chief Administrative Officer) 
(Recessed from 11/4/92) 

ACTION: Continued to November 18, 1992, meeting. 



File 172-92-15 . [Agreement] Ordinance approving and authorizing the execution and 
delivery of an agreement of purchase and sale for real estate, (including certain 
indemnities and the release of the seller contained therein), an assignment of 
agreement for purchase and sale agreement of real estate, a facilities lease 
(including certain indemnities contained therein), a trust agreement (including 
certain indemnities contained therein), and an official statement; authorizing the 
distribution of an official notice inviting bids in connection with the City and County 
of San Francisco certificates of participation (1660 Mission Street Project) Series 
1993; authorizing the Chief Administrative Officer to fix rents to be charged and to 
submit budgets for approval; authorizing and ratifying execution of documents 
reasonably necessary for the execution, delivery and sale of the certificates of 
participation; and adopting findings pursuant to City Planning Code Section 101.1, all 
in connection with the acquisition and leasing of the 1660 Mission Street property; 
companion measure to File 97-92-61. (Chief Administrative Officer) 
(Recessed from 11/4/92) 



ACTION: Amendment of the Whole adopted. Entitled: "[Project Lease] Approving 
and authorizing the execution and delivery of an agreement of purchase 
and sale for real estate (including certain indemnities and the release of 
the seller contained therein), an assignment of agreement of purchase 
and sale for real estate, a facilities lease (including certain indemnities 
contained therein), a trust agreement (including certain indemnities 
contained therein), and an official statement; authorizing the distribution 
of an official notice inviting bids in connection with the City and County 
of San Francisco certificates of participation (1660 Mission Street 
Project) Series 1993; authorizing the Chief Administrative Officer to fix 
rents to be charged and to submit budgets for approval; authorizing and 
ratifying execution of documents reasonably necessary for the execution, 
delivery and sale of the certificates of participation; and adopting 
findings pursuant to City Planning Code Section 101.1, all in connection 
with the acquisition and leasing of the 1660 Mission Street property. 
Continued to November 18, 1992, meeting. 



(Public Library, (Documents (Dept. 
3 p ATZAQ QerryXfftfi 

i 



CITY AND COUNTY 



|*K 




OARD OF SUPERVISORS 



BUDGET ANALYST 

1390 MARKET STREET, SUITE 1025 

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102 • TELEPHONE (415) 554-7642 



November 6, 1992 

TO: Finance Committee 

FROM: Budget Analyst 

SUBJECT: "November 9, 1992 Recessed Meeting of the Finance Committee 

Items 1 and 2 - Files 97-92-61 and 172-92-15 

Note: These items were recessed from the November 4, 1992 Finance Committee. 

Departments: Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) 

Items: File 172-92-15, a proposed ordinance, contains the following 

provisions: 

(1) Approving and authorizing the execution and delivery of 
an agreement of purchase and sale for real estate (including 
certain indemnities and the release of the seller contained 
therein); 

(2) Approving and authorizing (a) an assignment of purchase 
for sale of real estate; (b) a facilities lease (including certain 
indemnities contained therein); (c) a trust agreement 
(including certain indemnities contained therein); and (d) an 
official statement; 

(3) Authorizing the distribution of an official notice inviting 
bids in connection with the City and County of San Francsico 
Certificates of Participation (1660 Mission Street Project) 
Series 1993; 

(4) Authorizing the Chief Administrative Officer to fix rents 
to be charged and to submit budgets for approval; 

(5) Authorizing and ratifying execution of documents 
reasonably necessary for the execution, delivery and sale of 
the Certificates of Participation; and 

(6) Adopting findings pursuant to City Planning Code Section 
101.1, all in connection with the acquisition and leasing of the 
1660 Mission Street property. 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 4, 1992 



Location: 

Purpose of 
Purchase: 



Seller: 

Developer: 
No. of Sq. Ft: 
Total Cost: 

Source of Funds: 
Description: 



File 97-92-61 is a proposed ordinance amending the San 
Francisco Administrative Code by adding Chapter 10F 
thereof to establish a surcharge on plan, permit, 
environmental review, and related fees to recover costs for 
acquiring office space at 1660 Mission Street. 

1660 Mission Street 



To purchase a building as a location for a "One Stop Permit 
Shop" for building permits, i.e., to consolidate Bureau of 
Building Inspection, Planning Department, and Fire 
Department permit processes at a single location. 

Paul B. Andrew, bankruptcy trustee appointed by the court to 
oversee the asset 

The Derringer Group 

97,536 gross square feet; 66,987 net rentable square feet 

$5,700,000 

($85.09 per net rentable square foot; however, see Comment 11 

regarding an additional cost of $3.5 million for tenant 

improvements) 

Surcharge on plan, permit, environmental review, and 
related fees, collected by various departments, to support debt 
service for Certificates of Participation 

Currently, persons or companies wishing to build or remodel 
in San Francisco must visit up to four locations to receive 
permit approval: City-owned 450 McAllister, which houses 
the Department of City Planning, the DPW Bureau of 
Building Inspection, and certain Fire Department employees 
with permit responsibility; City Hall, which houses the DPW 
Division of Surveys and Maps; leased space at 524 Golden 
Gate, which houses employees of the Bureau of Building 
Inspection responsible for Plumbing and Electrical Permits; 
and leased space at Fox Plaza, which houses the code 
enforcement portion of the DPW Bureau of Building 
Inspection. 

The proposed ordinance would support the purchase of 1660 
Mission Street, an office building containing 66,987 rentable 
square feet of unfinished space, at a cost of approximately 
$5.7 million. The building would be used to establish a "One 
Stop Permit Shop" (i.e., to consolidate Bureau of Building 
Inspection, Planning Department, and Fire Department 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

2 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 4, 1992 



permit processes at a single location instead of in the four 
current locations). 1660 Mission Street was completed to core 
and shell condition in mid-1991 and is a six-story steel frame 
office building with a one level subterranean garage. 
Included in the purchase price of this building is an adjacent 
vacant lot containing approximately 5,080 square feet, which 
will be used for parking. 

The proposed purchase of 1660 Mission Street is to be 
financed with Series 1993 Certificates of Participation. 
Certificates of Participation are proportionate interests in the 
lease-purchase of property, which are sold to investors. The 
investors would receive a return on their investment through 
the lease payments made by the City. The City would assign 
its rights under the Purchase and Sale Agreement to a 
trustee, who would issue the Certificates of Participation. 
The City would then be obligated to make lease payments to 
the trustee to repay the holders of the Certificates of 
Participation. 

To support these Certificates of Participation, the CAO 
proposes to implement a surcharge on the following 
categories of fees: 

(a) Plan Review Fees; 

(b) Building Code Fees; 

(c) Public Works fees; 

(d) Planning Code fees; 

(e) Administrative Code fees. 

All of these fees would be increased, through a surcharge, as 
follows: 

(1) 3 percent for the period commencing July 1, 1993 through 
June 30, 1995; 

(2) a total of 4.5 percent for the period commencing July 1, 
1995 through June 30, 2000; and 

(3) a total of 6.5 percent for the period commencing July 1, 
2000 through June 30, 2005. 

Effective July 1, 2005, the surcharge would expire. 

The exact amount of the increase in fees, representing a 
surcharge, would vary depending on the size and complexity 
of the project, Mr. Larry Litchfield of the Bureau of Building 
Inspection reports. Based on estimated average sizes for 
small, medium and large jobs, Mr. Don McConlogue of the 
BBI reports that this surcharge would result in the following 
dollar costs: 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 4, 1992 



Comments: 



(1) 53 percent of permits consist of small residential projects, 
with an average value of $5,800. Such projects would result in 
a surcharge of $4.53 in the first period; $6.80 in the second 
period; and $9.82 in the third period; 

(2) 42 percent of permits consist of medium sized residential 
or commercial projects, with an average value of $47,000. 
Such projects would result in a surcharge of $42.83 in the 
first period; $64.25 in the second period; and $92.80 in the 
third period; 

(3) .1 percent of permits consist of large commercial projects, 
with an average value of $402,000. Such a project would result 
in a surcharge of $198.88 in the first period, $298.32 in the 
second period; and $430.90 in the third period. 

Mr. McConlogue reports that the remaining approximately 5 
percent of permits include miscellaneous projects whose fees 
are consistent with the fees noted above. 

Fees are based on the valuation of a construction project, Mr. 
McConlogue advises. According to Mr. Fred Weiner of the 
CAO's Office, these surcharges are structured so as to result 
in revenues equal to the total debt service over the financing 
period, including the purchase price of the building, at $5.7 
million, and tenant improvements, at $3.5 million, for a total 
of $9.2 million plus financing costs of approximately $1.87 
million, for a total of $11.07 million plus interest. 

1. According to Mr. Litchfield, 1660 Mission includes six 
floors, which would be used as follows: 

First Floor: 

to include 95 parking spaces, to be made available for public 
parking; and public information booths where seven 
employees would provide information regarding the status of 
an application, code interpretations, zoning and Fire Code 
information, etc. 

Second Floor: 

to include the permit center and the construction services 

center. 

Third and Fourth Floor: 

to include the building, electrical, plumbing, housing and 

code enforcement sections, including all inspectors. 

Fifth Floor: 

to include the administrative offices for the various applicable 

departments. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 4, 1992 



Sixth Floor: 

to include offices for agency heads, Planning Commission 
meeting rooms, employee meeting rooms, other meeting 
room space, and an employee lunch room. (Note: The Budget 
Analyst questions the necessity of a lunch room.) 

2. Mr. Weiner advises that approximately 300 employees, now 
occupying the four different locations noted in the description 
above, would relocate to 1660 Mission Street. According to Mr. 
DeLucchi, Director of Property, 450 McAllister consists of 
approximately 40,000 square foot, while the remaining three 
locations consist of approximately 8,300 square feet, for a total 
of 48,300 square feet. 1660 Mission Street contains 66,987 
rentable square feet, representing an increase of 18,687 
square feet, or approximately 39 percent. Each employee 
would occupy an average of 223 square feet, including a 
portion of public meeting rooms and interview rooms, 
whereas presently each employee occupies an average of 146 
square feet. Mr. DeLucchi advises that current conditions are 
overcrowded, and that the new space would also include 
meeting and interview rooms not currently in place. 

3. Mr. Litchfield anticipates a 20 percent improvement in 
efficiency as a result of the proposed "One Stop Permit Shop." 
This 20 percent improvement in efficiency is based on the 
experiences of Phoenix, Arizona, and San Diego, California, 
where the consolidation of permit processing has resulted in 
a 20 percent reduction in permit processing time. However, 
there is no documentation as to the percentage of efficiency 
that would be achieved in San Francsico. Mr. Litchfield 
advises that, based on meetings with permit applicants, most 
permit applicants who have been in contact with the 
departments have indicated a willingness to pay increased 
fees in exchange for reduced permit processing time. 
However, there is no documentation as to whether such 
applicants, who have been in contact with the various 
departments, are representative of all of the applicants on an 
annual basis. Currently, permit processing time takes from 
one day for small remodeling projects, such as kitchen 
remodeling, reroofing, or window replacement, to 90 days for 
large construction projects. 

4. Mr. Litchfield advises that because of the increased 
efficiency, the various departments would be able to process a 
larger number of permits in the proposed new building with 
the same number of employees. Therefore, the proposed new 
building would accomodate any growth in permit requests in 
future years, Mr. Litchfield reports. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISOKS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 4, 1992 



5. According to Mr. Litchfield, if the proposed "One Stop 
Permit Shop" is established at 1660 Mission, the permit 
application process would be restructured. Instead of 
applicants submitting applications in writing which are later 
reviewed by permit processors, applicants would meet with 
permit processors to review applications in person. This new 
process is anticipated to result in substantial increased 
efficiencies beyond the anticipated 20 percent increased 
efficiency noted above, Mr. Litchfield reports. 

6. Mr. Litchfield reports that, in accordance with a 1989 
recommendation by the Budget Analyst, permit processing 
has already been somewhat consolidated into a Construction 
Services Center at 450 McAllister. The Construction Services 
Center consists of two City Planning employees, two Fire 
Department employees, and two Surveys and Mapping 
employees who provide information to the public. Mr. 
Litchfield advises that this consolidation has resulted in the 
ability to issue permits over the counter for small residential 
improvement projects. However, due to space limitations at 
450 McAllister, most employees who carry out permit 
processing functions are located on a number of different 
floors. As of the writing of this report, the Budget Analyst has 
not been provided with any documentation regarding 
increased efficiency as a result of the Construction Services 
Center. 

7. According to Mr. Weiner, savings from terminating the 
lease at 524 Golden Gate and at Fox Plaza would total 
approximately $128,868 per year, including $46,068 for Fox 
Plaza and $82,800 at 524 Golden Gate. Mr. Weiner advises 
that these leases will terminate prior to the proposed 
occupation of 1660 Mission Street. Future additional rental 
costs would be avoided when the employees were moved to 
1660 Mission Street from the City-owned 450 McAllister, 
because this would enable City Hall employees to relocate to 
450 McAllister during seismic renovations at City Hall, 
instead of relocating to rented spaces, Mr. Litchfield advises. 

8. Mr. Weiner reports that the CAO had previously 
considered constructing a new building on the City-owned 
450 McAllister site and adjoining lots. However, Mr. Weiner 
advises that the cost of constructing a new building at that 
site would be approximately $60 to $70 million. That site is 
now proposed as a possible location for a new courthouse, to 
be funded from the Courthouse Construction Fund, Ms. Kate 
Harrison of the Superior Court advises. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

6 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 4, 1992 



9. Mr. Litchfield reports that several alternative locations 
were investigated for possible rental rather than purchase, 
including the Coca Cola Building on 11th Street, 614 Van 
Ness at Golden Gate. However, these buildings would be 
costly to rent. In addition, these buildings are not seismically 
sound or handicapped accessible, and would therefore 
require substantial improvements, Mr. Litchefield reports. 
According to Mr. DeLucchi, 1660 Mission Street was 
constructed in accordance with the seismic safety standards 
as set forth in the 1979 Uniform Building Code, as mandated 
by the Board of Supervisors in January, 1984. The building is 
also handicapped accessible, in accordance with Title 24 of 
the State Code. 

10. According to Mr. DeLucchi, construction on 1660 Mission 
began four years ago. One year ago, after the Darringer 
Group declared bankruptcy, the building came into the 
jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court. The City has negotiated 
to pay $5,700,000 for 1660 Mission, less outstanding fees owed 
to the City in the amount of $455,000 for affordable housing. 
These fees would be paid by the City from an escrow account. 
The seller would receive the remaining $5,245,000. 

11. If the proposed ordinance is approved, Mr. Litchfield 
anticipates that tenant improvements would be completed 
and the building could be occupied by January 1, 1994. Such 
tenant improvements would cost approximately $3.5 million. 
The estimated $3.5 milli on in tenant improvements would be 
in addition to the proposed purchase price of $5.7 million, for 
a total acquisition price for 1660 Mission Street of $9.2 million, 
which would be paid from the Certificates of Participation 
plus interest. Tenant improvements consist of constructing 
walls, partitions, installing heat, ventilation, and air 
conditioning, carpeting, etc. Moving costs are included in the 
budget for tenant improvements, Mr. Weiner reports. The 
funds for these tenant improvements would come from the 
sale of the Certificates of Participation noted above, which 
would be repaid from the fee surcharges. 

12. According to Mr. DeLucchi, tenant improvements would 
need to be completed at any facility occupied by the City. The 
cost of such improvements would vary based on the 
negotiations with the seller or renter, according to Mr. 
DeLucchi. 

13. Mr. DeLucchi advises that the cost to the City of 
constructing a new building comparable to the present 1660 
Mission Street building is estimated to be approximately 
$11,803,900, (including approximately $10,725,000 (based on 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 4, 1992 



$110 per gross square foot times approximately 97,500 square 
feet) for the building alone, plus approximately $1,078,800 for 
the land (based on $60 per square foot times 17,980 total 
square feet of land)) or over twice the cost of the proposed 
acquisition of 1660 Mission Street for $5,700,000. Tenant 
improvements, which are budgeted for 1660 Mission at 
approximately $3.5 million in addition to the purchase price, 
would be in addition to construction and land costs for a new 
building. Therefore, the estimated cost of constructing a new 
building is approximately $15,303,900 plus interest 
(assuming that tenant improvement costs for a new building 
would be $3.5 million), or approximately $6,103,900, or 66 
percent more than purchasing 1660 Mission Street, which is 
estimated to cost $9.2 million, including tenant 
improvements. Financing costs for this new building would 
be higher than comparable costs to acquire 1660 Mission 
because the total Certificates of Participation issue would be 
higher. Mr. Weiner advises that the Derringer Group and 
related financing institutions invested approximately $17 
million in the construction of 1660 Mission Street. 

14. Mr. Litchfield advises that the City's permit processing 
procedures are anticipated to be improved because a new 
employee with inter-departmental authority is being hired to 
coordinate permit processing. A new classification for this 
position has been approved by the Civil Service Commission 
and has been included in the FY 1992-93 budget. The new 
position will also be the person responsible for coordinating 
the Construction Services Center. If the proposed ordinance 
is approved, this new position would be instrumental in 
laying out and formalizing the permit processing plans at 
1660 Mission Street, Mr. Litchfield reports. 

15. The Budget Analyst notes that the departments have no 
documentation supporting anticipated increased efficiency or 
reduced rental costs. Therefore, the Budget Analyst 
recommends that, if the Board of Supervisors approves this 
proposed ordinance, the various departments be required to 
present an annual report to the Board of Supervisors 
documenting increased efficiency, reduced rental costs, and 
any other relevant information as a result of the proposed 
building purchase. 

16. According to Mr. Weiner, the CAO anticipates 
introducing an Amendment of the Whole for the proposed 
ordinance (File 172-92-15) that would allow the CAO to 
negotiate the sale of the Certificates of Participation to an 
underwriter, if such a negotiation would be in the best 
interests of the City. However, the CAO currently anticipates 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 4, 1992 

competitively bidding the Certificates of Participation unless 
the market changes significantly over the next few months. 

Recommendations: (1) Amend the proposed ordinance to require annual reports 
doumenting improvements in efficiency, reduced rental 
costs, and any other relevant information as a result of the 
proposed building purchase. (File 172-92-15) 

(2) Approval of the proposed ordinance, as amended, is a 
policy matter for the Board of Supervisors. 



cc: Supervisor Gonzalez 
Supervisor Migden 
Supervisor Hallinan 
President Shelley 
Supervisor Achtenberg 
Supervisor Alioto 
Supervisor Britt 
Supervisor Conroy 
Supervisor Hsieh 
Supervisor Kennedy 
Supervisor Maher 
Clerk of the Board 
Chief Administrative Officer 
Controller 
Jean Mariani 
Barbara Kolesar 
Ted Lakey 



Jja^ Harvey M. Rose 

V 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



p 

IcUS 



BOARD of SUPERVISORS 



!ii|r~ 




Govt Documents 
Public Library 
Civic Center 
S .F. CA 94102 



D 0133 



//// 



NOVEMBER 5, 19 9 2 



NOTICE OF CANCELLED MEETING 
FINANCE COMMITTEE 



DOr." iMFNTS DEPT. 
NOV 9 1992 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that due to the Veteran's Day 

holiday, the regularly scheduled meeting of the Finance 

Committee for Wednesday, November 11, 1992, at 2:00 p.m., 

/ 
has been cancelled. 





TOHN L. TAYLOR 
'Clerk of rhe Board 



POSTED: NOVEMBER 5, 1992 



^ NOV 17 1992 

?(7.2S ^CALENDAR SAN FRANCISCO 

i ^ PUBLIC LIBRARY- 

MEETING OF 
FINANCE COMMITTEE 



I*/' 



IT- 
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 1992 - 2:00 P.M. LEGISLATr/E CHAMBER 

^W 2ND FLOOR, CITY HALL 

MEMBERS: SUPERVISORS GONZALEZ, MIGDEN, HALLINAN 

CLERK: GAIL JOHNSON 

NOTE: Copies of the Budget Analyst's Report will be available for review on the 
counter in the Office of the Clerk of the Board, Room 235, City Hall, 
10:00 a.m., the date of the meeting. 

CONSENT CALENDAR 

1. All matters listed hereunder constitute a Consent Calendar, are considered to be 
routine by the Finance Committee, and will be acted upon by a single roll call vote 
of the Committee. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a 
member of the Committee or a member of the public so requests, in which event the 
matter shall be removed from the Consent Calendar and considered as a separate 
item. 

(a) File 101-90-36.2 . [Release of Funds] Requesting release of reserved funds, 
Department of Parking and Traffic, in an amount totalling $525,148 ($28,671 to 
City Planning Department for environmental review costs and $496,477 for 
identified hazardous waste clean-up costs) at the new San Francisco General 
Hospital parking garage. (Department of Parking and Traffic) 

(Cont'd from 11/4/92) 

(b) File 133-92-2.2 . [Release of Funds] Requesting release of reserved funds, 
Chief Administrative Officer/Solid Waste Management Program, in an amount 
totalling $17,000, for graphic design services for three projects, contractors 
Maria Wang Design Studios, Katherine Loh Graphic Design and Vinh Chung, 
($7,000 for updating office paper guide, $5,000 for design and printing of a 
Buy-Recycled Guide" and $5,000 for development of a waste minimization 
technical assistance packet for non-residential generators). (CAO/Solid Waste 
Management Program) 

(c) File 101-89-34.8 . [Release of Funds] Requesting release of reserved funds, 
Public Library, in the amount of $55,623, for the Chinatown Branch Library 
Design Funds. (Public Library) 

(d) File 101-89-34.9 . [Release of Funds] Requesting release of reserved funds, 
Public Library, in the amount of $63,000, for the Mission Branch Library 
Design Funds. (Public Library) 



(e) File 101-90-121.2 . [Release of Funds] Requesting release of reserved funds, 
Water Department/1991 Series-A Revenue Bond, in the of amount 2.6 million, 
for water main replacements. (Water Department) 

(f) File 94-91-4.5 . [Release of Funds] Requesting release of reserved funds, 
Public Utilities Commission, in the amount of $533,605, for project 
administration, indirect cost and equipment purchases. (Public Utilities 
Commission) 

(g) File 146-92-57.1 . [Grant - Federal Funds] Resolution authorizing the 
Department of Public Health, AIDS Office, to accept and expend a continuing 
grant of $6,029,444, which includes indirect costs in the amount of $429,170 
based on twenty percent of personnel costs, from the Department of Health 
and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control, to continue funding the 
AIDS Prevention Project. (Department of Public Health) 

(h) File 146-92-72 . [Grant - Federal Funds] Resolution authorizing the 
Department of Public Health, AIDS Office, to accept and expend a 
supplemental grant in the amount of $77,239, which includes indirect costs of 
$7,317 based on twenty percent of personnel costs, from the Department of 
Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control, to augment a 
continuation the AIDS Surveillance Project. (Department of Public Health) 

(i) File 148-92-8 . [Grant - Federal Funds] Resolution authorizing Director of 
Public Works to apply for, accept and expend Federal funds in the amount of 
$182,552 for the planting of trees using small local businesses as contractors. 
(Department of Public Works) 

(j) File 25- Q 2-33 . [Contract] Resolution concurring with the Controller's 

certification that Coordinator and Mentor Services for the Independent Living 
Skills Project can be practically performed at the Department of Social 
Services by private contractor for lower cost than similar work services 
performed by City and County employees. (Department of Social Services) 

(k) File 143-92-5 . [Office of Criminal Justice Planning Funding] Resolution 
authorizing the Chief of Police of the City and County of San Francisco to 
apply for, accept and expend funds in the amount of $110,000 made available 
through the Office of Criminal Justice Planning for a project entitled "Crime 
Prevention Expansion Project, Mission Corridor"; and agreeing to provide cash 
match in the amount of $12,222 dollars. (Police Commission) 

(1) File 146-92-39.1 . [Grant - State Funds] Resolution authorizing the 

Department of Public Health, Bureau of Epidemiology and Disease Control, to 
accept and expend a grant of $42,402 from the State Department of Health 
Services; for an augmentation of immunization services; waiving indirect 
costs. (Department of Public Health) 

(m) File 146-92-40.1 . [Grant - State Funds] Resolution authorizing the 

Department of Public Health, Division of Mental Health and Substance Abuse 
Services, to accept and expend a grant of $283,000 which includes indirect 
costs in the amount of $14,150 based on five percent of the total award from 
the State Department of Mental Health Services; for consultation, education 
and information services to San Francisco residents; providing for ratification 
of action previously taken. (Department of Public Health) 



(n) File 146-92-54 . [Grant - Federal Funds] Resolution authorizing the 

Department of Public Health, Special Programs for Youth, to retroactively 
apply for, accept and expend a grant of $66,774 which includes indirect costs in 
the amount of $11,070 based on twenty percent of salaries from the American 
Foundation for AIDS Research, to investigate the epidemiology of high risk 
adolescents in San Francisco; providing for ratification of action already 
taken. (Department of Public Health) 

(o) File 146-92-61.1 . [Grant - State Funds] Resolution authorizing the 

Department of Public Health, to accept and expend a grant allocation of 
$10,782,909, for Fiscal Year 1992-93 funding from State Department of Health 
Services for California Healthcare for Indigents Program (CHIP) funds, for 
medical services to indigent persons, professional services, medical services 
contracts, materials and supplies, facilities rental, personal services, and 
indirect costs in the amount of $152,841 based on 1.658646 percent of County 
Hospital and other Health Services CHIP allocations. (Department of Public 
Health) 

ACTION: 



REGULAR CALENDAR 

2. File 188-92-1 . Hearing to consider the fiscal impact of the 1987 contracts with 
Pacific Gas and Electric and the Modesto and Turlock Irrigation Districts for the 
purchase and sale of Hetch Hetchy water. (Supervisor Migden) 

(Cont'd from 11/4/92) 

ACTION: 

3. File 100-92-9 . Hearing to consider the City's efforts to secure anticipated revenues 
and fund transfers needed to balance the 1992-93 fiscal year budget for the City and 
County of San Francisco. (Supervisor Gonzalez) 

(Cont'd from 11/4/92) 

ACTION: 

4. File 198-92-3 . [Municipal Court Commissioner] Resolution authorizing the 
appointment of a commissioner for the San Francisco Municipal Court and assuming 
all costs as required by State law. (Supervisor Migden) 

ACTION: 

5. File 195-92-1.1 . Hearing to consider a long-range plan to alleviate jail 
overcrowding. (Supervisor Migden) 

ACTION: 

6. File 101-92-8 . [Government Funding] Ordinance appropriating $220,624, Mayor's 
Office of Community Development, for professional special service contracts 
(Dispute Resolution Program), permanent salaries. (Supervisor Hallinan) 

ACTION: 



7. File 118-92-8 . [Medical Waste Generator Procedures, Fees] Ordinance amending 
Health Code by adding Article 25, Sections 1401 through 1413, to provide a program 
for enforcement of the California Medical Waste Management Act and for 
registration, permitting, inspections and administrative fees for medical waste 
generators, treatment and storage facilities. (Supervisor Alioto) 

ACTION: 

8. File 260-92-1 . [Removal of Funds from Bank of America] Resolution urging the 
transfer of two city remittance banking accounts from the Bank of America, urging 
the transfer of City revolving banking accounts from the Bank of America, urging 
that Bank of America not be used for the City's proposed direct payroll deposit 
program, and urging all officers and employees of the City and County when given 
the opportunity to utilize the services of a financial institution for the City to 
consider the use of financial institutions other than the Bank of America. 
(Supervisor Achtenberg) 

ACTION: 

9. File 97-92-61 . [Fee Surcharges] Ordinance amending Administrative Code by adding 
Chapter 10F, to establish a surcharge on plan, permit, environmental review, and 
related fees to recover costs for acquiring office space at 1660 Mission Street; 
companion measure to File 172—92—15. (Chief Administrative Officer) 

(Cont'd from 11/9/92) 

ACTION: 

10. File 172-92-15 . [Project Lease] Ordinance approving and authorizing the execution 
and delivery of an agreement of purchase and sale for real estate (including certain 
indemnities and the release of the seller contained therein), an assignment of 
agreement of purchase and sale for real estate, a facilities lease (including certain 
indemnities contained therein), a trust agreement (including certain indemnities 
contained therein), and an official statement; authorizing the distribution of an 
official notice inviting bids in connection with the City and County of San Francisco 
certificates of participation (1660 Mission Street Project) Series 1993; authorizing 
the Chief Administrative Officer to fix rents to be charged and to submit budgets 
for approval; authorizing and ratifying execution of documents reasonably necessary 
for the execution, delivery and sale of the certificates of participation; and adopting 
findings pursuant to City Planning Code Section 101.1, all in connection with the 
acquisition and leasing of the 1660 Mission Street property; companion measure to 
File 97-92-61. (Chief Administrative Officer) 

(Cont'd from 11/9/92) 

ACTION: 

11. File 79-92-3 . [Federal Funding - Community Development] Resolution approving 
the 1993 Community Development Program, authorizing the Mayor on behalf of the 
City and County of San Francisco to apply for, receive, and expend the City's 1993 
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) entitlement from the U.S. 
Department of Housing and Urban Development; transfer and expend reprogrammed 
funds from prior year Community Development Programs and program income 
generated by the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency up to $21,708,373, which 
includes indirect costs of $80,000; approving expenditure schedules for recipient 
departments and agencies and for indirect costs, and determining no environmental 
evaluation is required, authorizing the receipt and deposit in contingencies of 1993 
CDBG entitlement funds in excess of $21,708,373. (Mayor) 

ACTION: 



12. File 38-92-25 . [Gift Acceptance] Resolution accepting one gift valued at $5,480, 
from Wells Fargo Bank, for publication of the Recreation and Park. Department 
Summer Activities Brochure. (Recreation and Park Department) 

(Cont'd from 11/4/92) 

ACTION: 

13. File 64-92-25 . [Extension of Existing Real Property Lease] Resolution authorizing 
exercise of an option to extend the existing lease of Pier 70 from the Port of San 
Francisco for use by the Police Department. (Real Estate Department) 

ACTION: 

14. File 64-92-26 . [Lease of Real Property] Resolution authorizing a new lease of real 
property at 25 Taylor Street, Rooms 612 and 614, for Department of Public Health. 
(Real Estate Department) 

ACTION: 

15. File 100-92-1.4 . [Release of Funds] Requesting release of reserved funds, Mayor's 
Office of Children, Youth & Their Families, in the amount of $3,275,126, contractual 
services. (Mayor's Office of Children, Youth & Their Families) 

ACTION: 

16. File 101-92-9 . [Government Funding] Ordinance appropriating $5,100, Art 
Commission, for other services (police security). RO #92089 (Controller) 

ACTION: 



FINANCE COMMITTEE 
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
ROOM 235, CITY HALL 
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102 



IMPORTANT 
HEARING NOTICE 



D 0133 



Govt Documents 
Public Library 
Civic Center 
S.F. CA 94102 



f 
\ 



CITY AND COUNTY 



Mic Library, "Documents CDept. 
| op san ^iOSS^Q^QeTry %gtfi 



/ 



J> 



DOC! impmts DEPT, 



;OARD OF SUPERVISORS 

NOV 17 1992 

BUDGET ANALYST 

SAN FRANCISCO 
1390 MARKET STREET, SUITE 1025 PUBLIC LIBRARY 

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102 • TELEPHONE (415) 554-7642 



November 16, 1992 



TO: Finance Committee 

FROM: Budget Analyst /^co/w^*^*" - 

SUBJECT: November 18, 1992 Finance Committee Meeting 



Item la -File 101-90-36.2 

Note: This item was continued by the Finance Committee at its meeting of 
November 4, 1992. 

Department Department of Parking and Traffic 

Item: Release of reserve for the new San Francisco General 

Hospital parking garage. 

Amount: $525,148 

Source of Funds: Off-Street Parking Funds 

Description: The Board of Supervisors previously approved legislation 

authorizing a supplemental appropriation in the amount of 
$1,000,000, for the Department of Parking and Traffic, to be 
used to pay for hazardous waste removal and environmental 
review fees in connection with the proposed new San 
Francisco General Hospital Garage. At the same time, the 
Board of Supervisors placed the entire $1,000,000 on reserve 
pending the Department of Parking and Traffic's selection of 
contractors and determination of hours, hourly rates and the 
MBE/WBE status of the contractors (File 101-90-36). Of the 
$1,000,000, $474,852 has previously been released from 
reserve, leaving a balance of $525,148 still on reserve. The 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 18, 1992 



$474,852 previously released from reserve was used to pay for 
contract services for the performance of the Environmental 
Impact Review ($162,850) and for contract services for the 
provision of hazardous waste removal ($312,002). 

The Department of Parking and Traffic is now requesting 
that the remaining balance of $525,148 be released from 
reserve. The Department of Parking and Traffic reports that 
$28,671 of the $525,148 would be used to pay for the City 
Planning Department's environmental review costs and the 
remaining $496,477 would be used to pay for additional 
contract services for the provision of hazardous waste 
removal. 

The Department of Public Health (DPH), Bureau of Toxic, 
Health and Safety Services is responsible for the 
management of the clean up of the toxic waste materials at 
the parking garage site. Ms. Pam Hollis of the Bureau of 
Toxic, Health and Safety Services reports that the 
Department has contracted with Harding Lawson Associates 
to provide the necessary hazardous waste removal services. 
According to Ms. Hollis this firm has an on-going contract 
with the PUC to provide similar services and was selected 
because the project could proceed more expeditiously, without 
a break in service, and operate more efficiently due to the 
firm's familiarity with the project site and with City 
operations. Harding Lawson Associates is neither an MBE or 
WBE firm. The contract with Harding Lawson Associates is 
in the amount of $519,963 as detailed below: 

Labor 

Principal Engineer (104 hrs. @ $41.19/hr.) $4,284 

Associate Engineer (348 hrs. @ $33.16/hr.) 11,540 

Associate Engineer (96 hrs. @ $34.10/hr.) 3,273 

Project Engineer (613 hrs. @ $21.24/hr.) 13,020 

Project Engineer (80 hrs. @ $24.75/hr.) 1,980 

Senior Engineer (42 hrs. @ $25.82/hr.) 1,084 

Project Coordinator (84 hrs. @ $18.78/hr.) 1,578 

Senior Field Technician (224 hrs. @ $18.21/hr.) 4,079 

Field Technician (185 hrs. @ $13.27/hr.) 2,455 

Field Operation Manager (40 hrs. @ $21.10/hr.) 844 
Field Operation Manager (100 hrs. @ $21.00/hr.) 2,100 

Technical Editor (2 hrs. @ $18.06/hr.) 36 

Drafting (84 hrs. @ $18.96/hr.) 1,593 



BOARD OF S UPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

2 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 18, 1992 



Administration (8 hrs. @ $19.00/hr.) 
Staff (240 hrs. @ $17.60/hr.) 
Word Processing (6 hrs. @ $14.24/hr.) 
Word Processing (183 hrs. @ 11.56/hr) 
Word Processing (8 hrs. @ 10.00/hr.) 
Clerical (83 hrs. @ $9.83/hr.) 
Subtotal 

Operating Expenses 
Services and Equipment 
Materials and Supplies 
Indirect Costs 
Contingency 

Subtotal 



Subcontracts 



$152 
4,224 

85 
2,115 

80 
816 



$18,597 
113,041 
191,853 

4 0,139 



$55,338 



Total 



363,630 

100.995 
$519,963 



Comments: 1. As noted above, the Contract services are estimated to cost 

$519,963, which is $23,486 more than the $496,477 available on 
reserve for these services after reducing the total $525,148 
funds available by $28,671 for the Planning Department. Mr. 
Kevin Hagerty of the Department of Parking and Traffic 
reports that a supplemental appropriation request has been 
submitted to the Mayor's Office, which would provide for the 
$23,486 balance needed to cover the cost of the contract services. 
The source of funds for this supplemental appropriation is the 
Off-Street Parking Funds. 

2. The City Planning Department reports that the 
environmental review costs are based on a fee schedule. The 
level of fee charged is determined by the total amount of the 
project construction costs. 

3. Ms. Hollis reports that Harding Lawson Associates has thus 
far selected HEW Drilling Company, a registered MBE firm, to 
provide a portion of the necessary subcontract services for this 
project. HEW Drilling Company's subcontract is in the amount 
of $19,105. Ms. Hollis advises that Harding Lawson Associates 
has stated that they are committed to subcontracting with MBE 
and/or WBE firms for the entire $100,995, which has been 
earmarked for subcontract services. 

4. According to Ms. Hollis, the removal of hazardous waste 
from this project site is now estimated by DPH to cost 
approximately $1.8 million or approximately $800,000 more 
than the original projection of $1,000,000. Ms. Hollis advises 
that the original estimate was made prior to the 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 18, 1992 



commencement of any analysis or work on the project and that 
subsequent analysis and investigation of the site has uncovered 
substantially more hazardous waste contamination then 
originally anticipated. Ms. Hollis states that it will be 
necessary for the Department of Parking and Traffic to submit 
a supplemental appropriation at a later date to pay for these 
unanticipated costs. 



Recommendation: Approve the release of reserve funds in the amount of 

$525,148. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 18, 1992 

Item lb - Fi l* 133-92-2.2 

Department: 



Item: 



Amount: 



Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) 
Solid Waste Management Program 

Release of reserve funds for graphic design services for three 
projects. 

$17,000 



Source of Funds: Refuse Collection and Disposal Fees Impound Account 

Description: During its review of the Solid Waste Management Program's 

FY 1992-93 budget, the Board of Supervisors placed $519,000 
for professional services on reserve pending information 
regarding identification of the service providers, estimated 
hours of service, hourly rates and MBE/WBE status. The 
Finance Committee has previously approved the release of 
$15,000 of the $519,000, leaving a balance of $504,000 still on 
reserve. The CAO is now requesting that an additional 
$17,000 be released from reserve to be used for the provision of 
graphic design services for the Solid Waste Management 
Program. 

The Solid Waste Management Program reports that the 
$17,000 would be expended as follows: (1) $7,000 would fund 
services provided by Maria Wang Design Studios, to update 
the fourteen page step-by-step guide on setting up a office 
paper recycling program, (2) $5,000 would fund services 
provided by Katherine Loh Graphic Design to design and 
print a "Buy-Recycled Guide" and (3) $5,000 would fund 
services provided by Vinh Chung Graphic Design to develop a 
waste minimization technical assistance packet for non- 
residential generators. The estimated hours of service as well 
as the hourly rates charged by the three firms are as follows: 



Maria Wang Design Studios 
Principal Designer (35 hrs. @ $50/hr.) 
Associate Designer (35 hrs. @ $50/hr.) 
Production Artist (40 hrs. @ $40/hr.) 
Computer Production (47.5 hrs. @ $40/hr.) 
Subtotal 



Contract 
Amount 
$1,750 

1,750 

1,600 

1.900 



$7,000 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 18, 1992 



Comment: 



Recommendation: 



Katherine Loh Graphic Design 
Graphic Design Services 

(40 hrs. @ $50/hr.) $2,000 

Translation - Asian and Baltic 

(25 hrs. @ $50/hr.) 1,250 

Typesetting (30 hrs. @ $40/hr.) 1,200 

Production Services (36 hrs. @ $15/hr.) 540 

Subtotal 



4,990 



Vinh Chung Graphic Desig n 
Design (40 hrs. @ $50/hr.) $2,000 

Translation - Spanish (40 hrs. @ $25/hr.) 1,000 
Typesetting (20 hrs. @ $50/hr.) 1,000 

Illustration (18 hrs. @ $55/hr.) SSQ. 

Subtotal 4.990 

Total $16,980 

The Solid Waste Management Program advises that the 
above noted graphic designers were selected as the most 
qualified contractors after the evaluation of work samples 
and interviews with a large pool of graphic designers in San 
Francisco. According to the Department, this process 
involved contacting approximately 20 firms listed with the 
Human Rights Commission and, in turn, meeting with ten 
of these firms to review work samples and to discuss their 
capabilities. Maria Wang Design Studios and Katherine Loh 
Graphic Design are certified as both MBE and WBE firms 
and Vinh Chung Graphic Design is a certified MBE firm. 

As noted above, the total amount required for the three 
graphic design contracts is $16,980 or $20 less than the 
$17,000 requested. 

Approve the proposed release of reserve funds in the amount 
of$16,980. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 18, 1992 



Item lc and Id - Files 101-89-34.8 and 101-89-34.9 

Department Public Library 

Items: Request to release reserved funds. 

Amount: 101-89-34.8 $55,623~Chinatown Branch Library Design 

101-89-34.9 $63,000- Mission Branch Library Design 

Source of Funds: 1988 Public Library FaciHties System Improvement Bonds 



Description: 



In October of 1989, the Board of Supervisors approved a 
supplemental appropriation ordinance for $11,366,423 to fund 
various capital improvement projects for the Main Library 
and the Branch Libraries and placed $3,940,277 on reserve. 
$3,263,255 of that $3,940,277 was earmarked for the Bureau of 
Architecture to provide architectural services to the Branch 
Libraries. $175,000 of that $3,940,277 was to provide design 
services. The Board of Supervisors placed the $175,000 on 
reserve pending detailed budget information regarding the 
level and type of staff services to be provided on the projects. 
These two requests would comprise $118,623 ($55,623 plus 
$63,000) of the $175,000 on reserve and would fund design 
services for the Chinatown and Mission Branch Libraries. 

The Bureau of Architecture has provided the following 
budgets for these two projects: 

Chinatown Branch Library 



Position. 


Hours 


Rate 


Total 


Architect 


270 


$71 


$19,170 


Architectural 








Assoc. (2) 


275 


69 


18,975 


Architectural Assist. 


271 


35 


9,485 


Clerical 


64 


37 


2,368 


Contingency 






5,625 


Total 








Mission Branch Library 






Position 


Hours 


Rate 


Total 


Architect 


300 


$71 


$21,300 


Architectural 








Assoc. (2) 


300 


69 


20,700 


Architectural Assist. 


300 


35 


10,500 


Clerical 


90 


37 


3,330 


Contingency 






7,170 


Total 








BOARD OF SIJPERVLSORS 






BUDGET ANALYST 







$55,623 



$63,000 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 18, 1992 



Recommendation: Release the requested $55,623 (File 101-89-34.8). 
Release the requested $63,000 (File 101-89-34.9) 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 18, 1992 

Item le - File 101-90-121.2 



Department: 
Item: 

Amount: 



Water 

Release of reserved funds for continuing the program of 
replacing water pipe connections (service) from the City's 
water mains to water customers' water meters. 

$2.6 million 



Source of Funds Water Department 1991 Series A Revenue Bonds 



Description: 



Comments: 



On June 26, 1991, the Board of Supervisors approved a 
resolution (file 101-90-121) appropriating $47,925,000 from 
Water Department 1991 Series A Revenue Bonds for the 
following projects: 

Main Replacement Project $ 19,125,000 

Service Renewals Project 2,500,000 

Calaveras Pipeline 11,300,000 

San Andreas Pipeline No. 3 Relining 15.000.00C 

Total $47,925,000 

Of the $19,125,000 appropriated for the Main Replacement 
Project . $3,500,000 was reserved pending the Water 
Department identifying the contractors to be used to replace 
the water mains and their MBE/WBE status. Instead, the 
Department requests that $2.6 million of the Main 
Replacement Project reserve be released and be used to 
continue the Service Renewal Project because the $2.5 million 
originally appropriated for the Service Renewal Project has 
been expended. This work is performed by Water Department 
personnel. 

1. The Service Renewal Project has been part of a continuing 
Water Department program in conjunction with the Main 
Replacement Project . A "service" is the small diameter pipe 
that is installed from the water main in the street to the 
meter located near the customer's property line. Initially, the 
Service Renewal Project concentrated on replacing old 
services containing lead pipe or fittings because of public 
health concerns. More recently, galvanized iron pipe services 
are being replaced because they are subject to corrosion, and 
some old plastic pipe services are being replaced because they 
are subject to cracks and leaks. 

2. The original $2.5 million appropriated for the Service 
Renewal Project work provided for the renewal of 
approximately 1,700 services to Water Department customers 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 18, 1992 



over a year. The requested additional $2.6 million that would 
come from the proposed release of reserve of Main 
Replacement Project monies would provide for the renewal of 
an estimated additional 1,700 services during the year 
beginning December 1, 1992. The budget for the proposed 
additional Service Renewal Project work is as follows: 



Labor 

Material and Supplies 
Paving 
Total budget 



$1,950,000 
300,000 
350.000 

$2,600,000 



3. Mr. John Madden of the Controller's Office indicates that 
the use of funds from the Main Replacement Project for the 
Service Renewal Project does not require any additional 
legislation. 

4. The Water Department's Service Division initiates a 
service renewal in response to reported problems or as part of 
the Service Renewal Project by submitting a work order to the 
Department's City Distribution Division. The City 
Distribution Division replaces the services with Department 
crews and material; without the need of plans or 
specifications. 

5. The $2.6 million is not currently required for the Main 
Replacement Project because this project is behind schedule. 
The Water Department is currently preparing a 
supplemental appropriation request for additional bond fund 
monies for the Main Replacement Project . The supplemental 
appropriation request will be made in January, 1993. 

6. The Water Department requests the release of $2.6 million 
of the $3.5 million reserved for the Main Replacement Project 
so that the amount of work accomplished under the Service 
Renewals Project work can be increased. According to Ms. 
Michele Witt, Finance Director for the Public Utilities 
Commission, the remaining $900,000 on reserve ($3,500,000 
originally reserved less the proposed release of $2,600,000) 
will be requested at a future date when the Department is 
ready to award contracts for the Main Replacement Project . 



Recommendation: Release the reserve. 



BOARD OF SUPKKVISOKS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 18, 1992 

Itemlf-File94-91-4.fi 

Department: Public Utilities Commission (PUC) 

Municipal Railway (MUNI) 

Item: Release of reserved funds for project administration, indirect 

cost and equipment purchases. 

Amount: $533,605 

Source of Funds: Federal Urban Mass Transportation Administration 
(UMTA) Section 9 formula assistance funds. 

Description: On June 17, 1991, the Board of Supervisors approved 

Resolution No 529-91 (File 94-91-4) appropriating $13,815,120 
of UMTA Section 9 formula assistance funds and $3,453,780 
from various local match sources totaling $17,268,900: 

Project Description Federal Local Total 

Fixed-Facility Rehabilitation 
Miscellaneous Equipment 
Non-Revenue Vehicles 
Data Processing & Office Equipment 
24th & Utah Shop Replacement 
Trolley Overhead Reconstruction 

Mission Street 
F-Market Streetcar (PCC) Renovation 
Trolley Specification 



Total 



$6,674,080 


$1,668,520 


$8,342,600 


1,144,500 


286,125 


1,430,625 


729,304 


182,326 


911,630 


875,164 


218,791 


1,093,955 


449,496 


112,374 


561,870 


3,035,096 


758,774 


3,793,870 


526,528 


131,632 


658,160 


380.952 


95.238 


476.190 


$13,815,120 


$3,453,780 


$17,268,900 



With the approval of Resolution No. 529-91, the Board of 
Supervisors reserved $14,093,750 of the $17,268,900. To date, 
$4,611,509 of the $14,093,750 has been released per four 
previous requests for release of reserved funds, as follows: 

Purchase of Computer Equipment $ 94,479* 

Streetcar Refurbishment 658,160 

Modification to Paint Booth Fans 65,000 

14 Mission Trolley Overhead Reconstruction 3.793.870 

Total $4,611,509 

* PUC was required to submit a report on the actual cost of 
equipment because the $94,479 represented an estimated cost 
for the proposed data processing equipment. This report is 
still pending. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 
11 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 18, 1992 



Comments 



The subject release of funds totaling $533,605 would increase 
the total release of funds from $4,611,509 to $5,145,114, leaving 
a balance of $8,948,636 on reserve. 

The proposed release of reserves totaling $533,605 would 
provide for project administration, indirect costs and 
equipment purchases, as follows: 

Administrative Work to be Performed by In-House Staff 
Sidewalk and Yard Paving $68,184 

Yard Security and Communications 51,977 
System Waste Collection, Identification 

and Removal 60,234 

BART Wet Standpipes, Phase II 117,554 

Cable Car Channel Construction 68.827 

Subtotal $366,776 

Equipment Purchase 
Yard Security and Communications 27,063 

Consultant Services 
System Waste Collection, Identification 
and Removal 139.766 

Total $533,605 

1. The Budget Analyst has reviewed the funding totals for 
each of the five projects for which administrative work is to be 
performed by in-house staff. The funding totals are as 
follows: 



Project In-House 

Description Staff Costs 

Sidewalk and Yard Paving $68,184 

Yard Security and Communications 51,977 

System Waste Collection & Removal 60,234 

BART Wet Standpipe Phase II 117,554 

Cable Car Channel Construction 68.827 

Total $366,776 



Consultant/ 

Contractual 

Services 

$181,816 
218,023 ' 
289,766 ' 

1,882,446 
831,173 



Total 

$250,000 
270,000 
350,000 

2,000,000 
900.000 



$3,403,224 $3,770,000 



* includes $27,063 for equipment purchases (see Comment 2) 

** includes $139,766 for consultant services (see Comment 3) 

2. The $27,063 includes the purchase of 21 portable radios 
(including carrying case and microphone accessory) at $1,000 
per portable radio, one base unit at $3,000 and one battery 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

12 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 18, 1992 



charger at $1,000 plus sales tax. The equipment will replace 
the public address system at the Kirkland shop and to 
support construction work in the subway tunnels. 

3. According to Ms. Rosa Rankin of MUNI, the consultant 
services for the System Waste Collection and Removal Project 
is to be performed by Clayton Environmental Consultants, 
which is not a MBE/WBE contractor. However, 5 sub- 
contractors supporting the work of Clayton Environmental 
are providing a 30 percent MBE/WBE contribution to the 
entire consultant contract as follows: 



Fuel Oil Polishing (WBE) 


10% 


Bendix Environmental (WBE) 


5% 


Jordan Associates (MBE) 


5% 


E2 Consulting Engineers (MBE) 


5% 


HEW Drilling (MBE) 


5% 


Total 


30% 



Recommendation: 



4. In reviewing the financial data provided by MUNFs 
Engineering Division, the Budget Analyst noted that the 
calculation for the project management of the Sidewalk and 
Yard Paving Project totaling $8,511 was double counted in 
computing the total in-house staff cost of $68,184. Under 
these circumstances the in-house staff cost for the Sidewalk 
and Yard Paving Project should be reduced by a total of $8,511 
from $68,184 to $59,673 and the subject release of reserve 
should be reduced $8,511 from $533,605 to $525,094. 

Decrease the proposed release of reserves by $8,511 from 
$533,605 to $525,094 and approve the release of reserves as 
amended. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

13 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 18, 1992 

Item lg -File 146-92-57.1 

Department: Department of Public Health (DPH) 

AIDS Office 

Item: Resolution authorizing the Department of Public Health, 

AIDS Office, to accept and expend a continuing grant of 
$6,029,444, which includes indirect costs in the amount of 
$429,170, based on 20% of personnel costs, excluding fringe 
benefits, from the Centers for Disease Control, to continue the 
AIDS Prevention Project. 

Amount of Grant: $6,029,444 

Source of Grant Centers for Disease Control 



Grant Period: 

Project: 

Description: 



Grant Budget 



January 1, 1993 to December 31, 1993 

AIDS Prevention Project 

The proposed grant would support a variety of AIDS 
Prevention Programs. These programs include counseling 
and testing services, partner notification services, health 
education and risk reduction services, and public 
information services. In 1993, additional prevention 
strategies would be incorporated into the project, including 
community level interventions, prevention case 
managements, and limited short and long term follow-up to 
determine program impact on behavior change. 

To implement the AIDS Prevention Project, the AIDS Office 
monitors contracts, performs program assessments and 
evaluation studies to determine the need for continued 
services for each population, as well as providing direct 
services. Direct services are also provided by non-profit 
organizations as sub- contractors. 



Personnel 

Prevention Chief 

Program Coordinator 

Project Coordinator 

Secretary II 

Secretary I 

Sr. Clerk Typist 

Clerk Typist 

Statistician 

MIS Specialist III 

MIS Technician 



FTE 



1.00 


$58,834 


3.00 


153,038 


1.25 


54,466 


3.50 


129,090 


1.00 


28,602 


2.50 


80,585 


3.00 


89,718 


1.00 


38,607 


.25 


13,338 


1.00 


26,327 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



14 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 18, 1992 



Management Assistant 


1.00 


$46,099 


Jr. Management Assistant 


2.80 


98,459 


Lab Assistant 


1.00 


36,254 


Microbiologist 


1.50 


71,507 


Sr. Disease Control Investigator 1.00 


46,768 


Disease Control Investigator 


6.50 


259,938 


Epidemiologist II 


1.00 


56,025 


Sr. Health Educator 


2.00 


110,391 


Health Educator 


2.00 


97,776 


Asst. Health Educator 


3.50 


154,207 


Health Prog. Coordinator III 


.50 


30,127 


Health Prog. Coordinator II 


1.00 


44,360 


Health Worker IV 


2.80 


116^08 


Health Worker III 


2.70 


82,423 


Licensed Vocational Nurse 


.50 


17,030 


As Needed Nurse 




30,276 


Registered Nurse 


1.00 


51,182 


Medical Social Work Supervisor 1.00 


55,195 


Medical Social Worker 


1.00 


45,216 


Psycho-Social Worker 


,50. 


23,719 


Personnel Subtotal 


$2,145,865 


Fringe Benefits @ 25.6% 




550,055 


Total Personnel 


50.80 




Travel 






Local Travel 




$9,140 


Out-of-Jurisdiction Travel 




22.875 


Equipment 






PC Work Stations (3 at 3,140) 




$9,420 


PC Computer 




1,500 


Scantron Optical Mark Reader (a device 




that automatically reads a questionaire) 


12.530 


Total Equipment 






Materials and Supplies 






Non-Inventoried Equipment 




$1,775 


Laboratory supplies 




56,000 


Clinical Supplies 




9,850 


Education Materials and Supp] 


ies 


38,210 


Office Supplies 




21,753 


Operating Expenses 






Rent Support (Clinics) 




$15,000 


Rent Support 




130,409 


Telephone/Communications 




25,600 


Postage 




7,185 


BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 




BUDGET ANALYST 





$2,695,920 



32,015 



23,450 



127,588 



15 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 18, 1992 



Delivery/Courier Services 


$12,750 


Photocopier Leasing 


10,350 


Reproduction Costs 


13,920 


Printing/Slide Production 


6,550 


Promotions/Advertising 


27,600 


Staff Training 


10,625 


Security and Janitorial Svcs at Clinics 


12,107 


Client Participation Incentive 


28,595 


Utilities 


1,200 



$301,891 

Contractual Services (listed by program and target group) * 

HIV Prevention & Education 
Gay/Bisexual Injection 

Drug Users (IDUs) - 

18th Street Services (B) $122,901 

African- American IDUs - Bay view 

Hunter's Point Foundation (C) 116,750 
Evaluation of IDUs - UCSF Urban 

Health Study (D) 428,409 

Asian/Pacific Islander community: 

Japanese Community 

Youth Council (E) 40,587 

Filipino Task Force on AIDS (F) 40,000 

Asian AIDS Project (G) 82,413 

Female IDUs/Partners of IDUs - 

Planned Parenthood (J) 30,000 

IDUs in the Tenderloin - 

Glide Foundation (K) 10,000 

African-American 

gay/bisexual community - 

National Task Force on 

AIDS Prevention (L) 30,000 

Latino Community - 

to be determined (M) 92,910 

African-American community - 

to be determined (N) 86,602 

Latino gay/bisexual community - 

to be determined (O) 30,000 

Consultants to develop a video for 
on HIV transmission prevention 
- Youth Guidance Center 
(sole source; not included on 
Attachments A or B) 11.000 

Total HIV Prevention and Outreach $1,121,572 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

16 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 18, 1992 



HIV Counseling and Testing 
Anonymous HIV 

Counseling and Testing Services 
- UCSF AIDS Health Project (A) $367,204 
Counseling/Testing Training - 

UCSF AIDS Health Project (P) 125,932 
IDUs in Bayview/Hunter's Point - 

Bayview Hunter's Point 

Foundation (Q) 102,000 

IDUs Citywide - Haight Ashbury 

Free Clinics, Inc. (R) 139,674 

IDUs- 

Westside Community Health (S) 158,211 
Risk Reduction - 

18th Street Services (T) 77,655 

Gay/bisexual Asian/ 

Pacific Islander community - 

Asian-Pacific Islander 

Coalition on AIDS (H) 60,000 

Technical Assistant to minority 

community based organizations - 

The Support Center (I) 25.000 

Total HIV Counseling and Testing $1,055,676 

HIV Prevention Staffing at San 

Francisco General Hospital (supports 

6.0 FTEs at SFGH, including a Program 

Administrator; an Administrative Assistant; 

a half-time Public Administrative Analyst; a 

Clinical Director of Counseling and 

Testing; a half-time Employee Counselor; 

and two Patient Counselors) 242.162 



Total Contractual Services $2,419,410 

Indirect Costs 429.170 

TOTAL BUDGET $6,029,444 

*Capital letters following contractors' names correspond to 
contractor selection procedures listed on the "1993 AIDS 
Prevention Project: Summary of Contractual Services," 
attached (Attachment B). All contractors that are "to be 
determined" should be reserved pending selection of a 
contractor and MBE/WBE status of the contractor (see 
Comment 3). 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

17 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 18, 1992 

Indirect Costs: $429,170 or 20 percent of personnel costs excluding fringe 

benefits. 

Required Match: None 

Comments: 1. The Board of Supervisors previously approved a resolution 

(File 146-92-57) authorizing the DPH to apply for a 
continuation grant of $6.25 million from the Centers for 
Disease Control, to continue funding the AIDS Prevention 
Project. 

2. The proposed $6,029,444 in 1993 grant funds is $69,691, or 
1.1 percent less than the $6,099,135 allocated by the Centers 
for Disease Control for the AIDS Prevention Project for 1992. 

3. Attachment B entitled "1993 ADDS Prevention Project: 
Summary of Contractual Services" contains capital letters 
following the names of contractors in the Contractual 
Services portion of the budget which correspond to the names 
of contractors on this attachment. The attachment describes 
the selection procedures for each contractor. All of the 
contractors for the AIDS Prevention Project are non-profit 
organizations. 

Contracts that are "to be determined" should be reserved 
pending contractor selection and information regarding the 
MBE/WBE status of the contractor. Contractors to be 
determined are as follows: 



Latino Community (M) 
African-American community (N) 
Latino gay/bisexual community (O) 
TOTAL TO BE DETERMINED 



$92,910 

86,602 

30.000 

$209,512 



Thus, a total of $209,512 should be reserved pending selection 
of contractors and the MBE/WBE status of the contractors. 

4. Six contractors were selected as sole source renewals: 
UCSF AIDS Health Project; Bayview Hunters Point 
Foundation; Haight Ashbury Free Clinics, Inc.; Westside 
Community Mental Health; Eighteenth Street Services; and 
the Youth Guidance Center. According to Mr. Tim Piland of 
the DPH, the DPH authorizes the selection of sole source 
contractors in cases where either the contractor is the only 
organization to provide the service, or where the contractor is 
the only organization to express an interest in the contract. 
Such sole source contracts may be in place for three years, 
Mr. Piland reports. Therefore, according to Mr. Piland, these 
sole source contracts will be bid competitively after three 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



1 R 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 18, 1992 



years, or in or before 1994 (since these sole source grants are 
all renewals, and thus would be in their second year). 

5. The DPH has received EIPSC approval for the purchase of 
three PC workstations and one PC. 

6. The DPH advises that if grant funding were reduced or 
terminated, personnel would be reduced or terminated 
accordingly. The proposed grant would support 50.8 FTEs, 
plus 6.0 FTEs at San Francisco General Hospital (shown as 
last item under Contractual Services in budget above). 

7. Attachment A is a Summary of Grant Request^ as 
prepared by the DPH, for the proposed supplemental grant. 



Recommendation 



7. A Disability Access Checklist is included in the file. 

Reserve $209,512 for contractual services as detailed in 
Comment 3, above, pending selection of contractors and 
determination of the MBE/WBE status of the contractors. 
Approve the proposed resolution as amended. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



19 



Attachment A 



Ittm No. 1 1 1 h Cnrnmi^i"P - Summnrv nf r nnt Ren»?5t 

Dept of Health and Human Services 



Rev. 4/io/SO 



Grantor 
Contact Person 



Centers for Disease Control 
E. Taylor/J. Stubbs 



CO/AIDS Div 



AIDS Office 



Address 255 East Paces Ferry Road, NE 
Atlanta, GA 30305 



Amount Requested S 6,029,444 
Term: From 1/1/93 

Health Commission 10/20/92 



To 12/31/93 



Division • _ 

Section _ 

Contact Person Tim Piland/ Judith Weld 

Telephone SS&-Q137 SS4-QCUA 

Application Deadline 9/18/92 



Notification Expected 11/15/92 

Board of Supervisors: Finance Committee 

Full Board 



T. Item Description: 



Request 10 Qspplptot) (accept and expend) a (aoc) (continuation) {riJamnB^BnacgaOBtoffgl) 

grant in the amount of S 6, 029,444 from the period of 1/1/93 to 12/31/93 

to provide continued funding for AIDS Prevention Project services. 



1L 



These funds will continue to support, along with additional state and local funding , 
a wide array nf ATDS prevention programs; these programs include Counseling and Tes t ing 
services. Partner Notification services. Health Education and Risk Reduction servic es, 
and Public Information services. (Please see Executive Summary) 



T T T . Ou tcome<;/Oh iecf i ves: 

To provide AIDS prevention services to residents of San Francisco in order to 
prevent the transmission of HIV. (Please see Executive Summary) 



TV. r rrrc- 



,t S»Hiirti 



The efforts of the AIDS Office to limit the transmission of HIV in San Francisco 
would be severely impaired if we were not allowed to accept and expend these funds, 



Financial Tr.for 



Cnl. 



cm. 



Grant Amouat 
Personnel 
Equipment 
'Contract Svc. 
Mat. & Supp. 
Facilities/Space 
Other 
Indirect Costs 



i wo Years Ago 
6.032.973 
2.066.590 

13.810 
3.413.269 

56,146 

114.288 

33,244 

335.626 



Pan Ycar/Onj. 

6.099.135 

2.574.965 

16.982 

2.582.671 

115,206 

154.075 

246,510 

408,726 



■ Propoicd 

6.029.444 

2.695.920 

23.450 

2.408,410 -174.261 

127,588 + 12,382 



Cnl. D 
Gangs 

- 69.691 
+120.955 
+ 6,468 



145.159 
199,747 
429. 170 J 



- 8.916 

- 46,763 
+ 20.444 



Rec. Match 

W$L 



vj 


Dntn 


P'nr,< 


:.no 


(^ 


PfT 


-.v«, 




VTT 





F/T CSC 
P/T CSC 

Contractual 



7,000 



46.00 



16,9 82 



51.65 



23,450 



50.80 



6,468 



- 0.85 



Sourct(s) of non-grant funding for salaries of CSC employees working part-tizne on this grant: 

None . 

Will grant funded employees be retained after this grant terminates? If sc, How? 
No. 



'VTTT. rnnirirnnl ^orvic.c; Open Bid 



Sole Source 



Please see Contract Summary Attachment 



Attachment B 
rage 1 of 2 



1993 AIDS PREVENTION PROJECT: Summary of Contractual Services 

.1 

AIDS Office Contracts 



A . UCSF ADDS Health Project 

Anonymous testing services $367,204 

B . Bayview Hunter's Point Foundation 
for Eighteenth Street Services 

Outreach to gay/bisexual substance- 
abusing community $122,901 

C . Bayview Hunter's Point Foundation 

Outreach to African American substance- 
abusing community $116,750 

D . UCSF Urban Health Study 

Outreach evaluation to substance- 
abusing community $428,409 

E . Japanese Community Youth Council 

Prevention and education for Asian- 
Pacific Islander community $ 40,587 

F . Filipino Task Force on ADDS 

Prevention and education for 

Filipino community $ 40,000 

G. Asian American Health Forum 
for Asian AIDS Project 

Prevention and education for Asian- 
Pacific Islander community $ 82,413 

H. Asian American Health Forum 

for Asian-Pacific Islander Coilition 
on AIDS 

Prevention and education for Asian- 
Pacific Islander gay and bisexuals $ 60,000 

The Support Center 

Technical assistance for community- 
based organizations $ 25,000 



RFP 088-90 renewal 



RFP 077-90 renewal 



RFP 077-90 renewal 



RFP 077-90 renewal 



RFP 105-90 renewal 



RFP 105-90 renewal 



RFP 105-90 renewal 



RFP 080-90 renewal 



To augment previously 
approved sole source contract 



Atta chment B_ 
Page T~o~F~2 



J . Planned Parenthood 

Prevention and education for women kt risk 
(IDUs, their partners, sex industry workers, 
lesbian and bisexual women) $ 30,000 



K. Glide Foundation 

Prevention and education via street- 
outreach to injection drug users 



$ 10,000 



L . National Task Force on AIDS Prevention 

Prevention and education for African 

American gay and bisexual community $ 30,000 



M. To Be Determined 

Prevention and education for the 
Latino community 

N . To Be Determined 

Prevention and education for the 
African American community 

. To Be Determined 

Prevention and education for Latino 
gay and bisexual community 



TBD 



TBD 



TBD 



RFP 111-91 augmentation 



RFP 077-90 augmentation 



RFP 080-90 renewal 



Currently out-to-bid 



Currently out-to-bid 



Currently out-to-bid 



P . UCSF ADDS Health Project 

Counseling and testing services/training 

Q. Bayview Hunter's Point Foundation 

Counseling and testing services 

R. Haight Ashbury Free Clinics, Inc. 

Counseling and testing services 

S . Westside Community Mental Health 

Counseling and testing services 



T. Eighteenth Street Services 

Counseling and testing services 



Community Substance Abuse Service Contracts 

$125,932 
$102,000 
$139,674 
$158,211 
$ 77,655 



Sole source renewal 



Sole source renewal 



Sole source renewal 



Sole source renewal 



Sole source renewal 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 18, 1992 

Item lh - File 146-92-72 

Department: Department of Public Health (DPH) 

AIDS Office 

Item: Resolution authorizing the Department of Public Health, AIDS 

Office, to accept and expend a supplemental grant of $77,239, 
which includes indirect costs in the amount of $7,317, based on 
20% of salaries, from the Centers for Disease Control, to 
augment a continuation of the AIDS Surveillance Project. 

Amount of Grant: $77,239 

Source of Grant: Centers for Disease Control 

Grant Period: January 1, 1993 to December 31, 1993 

Project: Supplemental Funding to the AIDS Surveillance Project 

Description: This supplemental funding would allow the AIDS Office to 

continue the Women's Survey Study in 1993. The Women's 
Survey study would determine the prevalence of HrV 
infection in a sample of 250 women who have sex with 
women in nine Bay Area counties. The study would 
determine the level of risk behaviors in this population and 
the associates of this population, and would describe the 
population's safe sex behaviors. 



No. of Persons 




tobe Served: 


250 women 


Grant Budget 


Personnel FTE 




Sr. Disease Control Investigator .42 $17,309 




Disease Control Investigators .50 19.275 




Subtotal Salaries $36,584 




Fringe Benefits (26%) 9.512 




Subtotal Personnel .92 




Operating Expenses 




Staff Mileage 150 




Staff Training 876 




Client Participation Incentives ($50 x 250) 12,500 




Survey Vehicle Rental 




(Recreational Vehicle to travel to test sites) 4,500 




Recreational Vehicle Gas and Oil 300 




Clinical Supplies 1,500 




Laboratory Supplies 3,300 




Educational Materials and Supplies 2QQ_ 


• 


Subtotal 




BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 



$46,096 



23,826 



BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 18, 1992 



$7.317 
$77,239 



Indirect Costs 

Total 

Indirect Costs: $7,317 or 20 percent of salaries 

Required Match: None 

Comments: 1. The DPH was not required to apply for this proposed 

supplemental grant, since it previously applied for 1993 funds 
from the Centers for Disease Control for the AIDS 
Surveillance Project. 

2. The proposed $77,239 in supplemental grant funds is 3.5 
percent greater than the $2,179,806 originally allocated by the 
Centers for Disease Control for the AIDS Surveillance Project 
for 1993. 

3. Attached is a Summary of Grant Request, as prepared by 
the DPH, for the proposed supplemental grant. 

4. A Disability Access Checklist is included in the file. 
Recommendation Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

2A 



Iter:,' No. Hen Uh C"mmi5«=i"P - Summnrv nf GUUll F?HU?5t Rev. 4/10/90 1 

Dept of Health ai luman Srvs 

Grantor Centers for Disease Control Division - CQ-/AIDS Div 

Contact Person Nealeen Austin/Jeff Efird Section AIDS Office 

Address 1600 Clifton Road Contact Person Judith Weld/Galen Leu ng 

Atlanta, GA 30333 Telephone 554-9000 

Amount Requested S 77,239 ; Application Deadline none 

Term: Frow 1/1/93 To 12/31/93 Notification Expected 11/15/92 

Health Commission 10/20/92 Board of Supervisors: Finance Committee 

Full Board . 



y. item Description: Request to ^appl$»QSor) (accept and expend) z'^oea^sactaisaQa/i^f/sMsaxxm) (augmentation to a) 
«c~ .prf— -<■*-> grant in the amount of S 77,239 from the period of 1/1/93 to 12/31/93 

to prnvirle supplemental funding to AIDS Surveillance Project services. 



This supplemental funding will allow the Women's Survey Study to continue into the new 
1993 funding period: this study will dete rmine the prevalence of HIV- infect ion in a 
sample of 250 wom en who have sex with wom en (a lik e number were surveyed wi th 1992 funds) 
in a nine-county S.F. Bay Area selection area; will determine level of risk behavio rs in 
this population and thei r associates; wi ll descr ibe attitudes and hehavi ors about s afe sex. 
[TT. Ourcnmes/Ohifcrivfs: ■ Please see attached Protocol. 
Please see page three of the attached Protocol for the Women's Survey. 



if P-Htirrinn or T>rm it. atjnr 



Failure to accept and expend these funds would not allow the AIDS Office to continu e 

this important epidemiologic study in 1993. 

V. Financial In form a tion : - ■ ' 

Cnl. A Cnl. R Cnl. Q Cnl. D Rec. Match A^vnv.j v. 

Two Vesri Ago ?:»i Yeir/Orij./ ■ Propojed Cua{c / 

Grant Anouat 1.986.112 2.102.567 2.179.806 + 77.239^ none 

Personnel 1.393.627 1.522.763 1.568,859 + 46.096 j 

Equipment 18,180 11,707 11,707 ; 

Contract Sv C . 156.529 58,900 58.900 

Mat. & Suod. 102.426 92.161 97.661 + 5.500 

Facilities/Soace 35,986 52.191 52,191 i 

Other 94,152 123,136 141,462 + 18,326 

Indirect Costs 221,211 241,709 249,026 ± 7.317 

18,180 11,707 11,707 



VT n n t n P-nr.< 


cino 


. \.^ A 




III. Ptrcnnn«l 





FIT CSC 29.70 27.70 30.20 + 2.50 (p ar tial fun ding: remainder of 

P/T CSC thes e arlHirinn al positions will 

Contractual lie funded by other grant sources) 

iource(s) of non-grant funding for salaries of CSC employees working part-tice on this grant: 
None; all other sources of funding for these additional positions are grant funded . 

"ill grant funded employees be retained after this grant terminates? If so, How? 

io. " 

VTTT rnv-iri.nl cr.rvif.c- Open Bid Sole Source IV^mmxm.MMll&MtmUtBaimtmB 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 18, 1992 

Item li - File 148-92-8 

Department Department of Public Works 



Item: 

Grant Amount : 
Grant Period: 
Source of Funds: 
Project 
Description: 



Resolution authorizing the Director of Public Works to apply 
for, accept and expend Federal funds in the amount of 
$182,552 for the planting of trees, using small local 
businesses as contractors. 

$182,552 

October 1, 1992 through September 30, 1993 

U.S. Small Business Administration 

National Small Business Tree Planting Program 

The Small Business Administration of the U.S. Department 
of Commerce has allocated Federal funds to the California 
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection for reforestation 
projects which utilize small businesses. The California 
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection is administering 
the grant funds to local governments. 

Under the Public Works code, the Department of Public 
Works (DPW) is responsible to plan, plant, maintain, and 
remove trees in any public street. DPW reports that the 
proposed grant funds of $182,552 would supplement $155,680 
in DPWs 1992-93 budget for urban forestry activities, in order 
to fund the following projects: 

• Street Tree Replacement 

Approximately 550 trees died during the freeze of 
December 1990. The proposed grant would fund the 
replacement of these trees with hardier, drought-tolerant 
species. These trees would be planted City-wide. 

• Sunset Boulevard Reforestation 

DPW reports that of 850 trees planted along Sunset 
Boulevard approximately 50 years ago, many are of 
declining vigor. The proposed reforestation project would 
assist DPW to implement its management program for 
this 2.3 mile thoroughfare. 

• Brotherhood Way Improvements 

DPW reports that the reforestation project would improve 
the aesthetic character of Brotherhood Way east of 
Junipero Serra Boulevard by screening the blank walls of 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



■?f> 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 18, 1992 



Project Budget 



abutting residences and introducing extensive tree groves 
throughout the right-of-way. 

DPW reports that the proposed grant would fund 550 
replacement trees City-wide and approximately 2,800 new 
trees on Sunset Boulevard and Brotherhood Way, for a total of 
3,350 trees to be purchased and planted using the proposed 
grant funds. 

Under the terms of the grant program, plant materials must 
be purchased from at least one small local business, and the 
overall project must be performed using the services of at 
least two small local businesses, which are defined as firms 
having 100 or fewer employees. DPW would be responsible 
for project planning and design, construction management, 
and maintenance, using existing budgeted funds (see Project 
Budget, below). 

DPW has provided the following cost summary for the 
proposed reforestation project: 



Activity 

Contractual Services 

Maintenance 

Project Planning and Design 

Construction Management 

Administrative Fee — 
CA Department of Forestry 

Total Project Costs 



Local Funds 


Grant Funds 




$146,042 


$140,680 




7,500 




7,500 






36.510 



$155,680 



$182,552 



Required Match: 



The grant program requires the grantee to provide an in-kind 
contribution equal to at least 35 percent of the grant amount. 
San Francisco's proposed grant funding of $182,552 therefore 
would require a local match of at least $63,893. 



Indirect Costs: 



Comments: 



The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection 
reports that indirect costs are not allowed. However, the 
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection itself 
imposes an administrative fee of 20 percent for administering 
the Federal funds for this program. 

1. According to the Ms. Darla Mills of the California 
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDFFP), grant 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



01 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 18, 1992 



funds may be used only for contracts with small local 
businesses to purchase and plant the trees. Plant materials 
must be purchased from at least one small local business, 
and the overall reforestation project must include the 
services of at least two small local businesses, according to 
Ms. Mills. 

Ms. Mills reports that the grant funds must be expended by 
the end of the Federal fiscal year, which is September 30, 
1993. In order to account to the Federal government in a 
timely fashion, however, Ms. Mills reports that CDFFP will 
require the funds to be expended prior to August 31, 1993. 

2. Ms. Mills states that, because the Federal government did 
not provide funding to CDFFP to administer the grant, 
CDFFP has imposed an administrative fee of 20 percent. 
Under the proposed grant to DPW, the City would pay 20 
percent of the proposed grant amount of $182,552, or $36,510. 

Ms. Mills states that the administrative fee must be paid 
using local funds and cannot be paid from the grant 
proceeds. However, DPW has included the administrative fee 
in the budget for the grant-funded portion of the project, 
which conflicts with the grant requirements as stated by Ms. 
Mills. 

3. Mr. John Thomas, a Landscape Architect at the Bureau of 
Engineering who assisted in preparing the grant application, 
reports that DPWs budget for 1992-93 does not include $36,510 
to pay the CDFFP administrative fee. Mr. John Roumbanis 
of the Department of Urban Forestry at DPW states that 
$36,510 could be diverted from funds allocated in the 1992-93 
DPW budget from Proposition B, 1/2 cent sales taxes proceeds 
to pay the administrative fee. These sales tax proceeds are 
allocated to DPW for street maintenance activities City-wide. 
Mr. Roumbanis states that although these funds are already 
committed to tree maintenance activities, it would be in the 
City's best interests to divert $36,510 from these activities in 
order to secure the proposed grant funds of $182,552 for the 
proposed reforestation projects. According to Mr. 
Roumbanis, the tree maintenance activities which would 
have been funded with the $36,510 in Proposition B funds 
would be postponed. 

4. Since the proposed grant funds cannot be used to pay the 
CDFFP administrative fee, then $36,510 in grant funds which 
DPW has budgeted for the administrative fee would be 
available for additional reforestation activities. Mr. 
Roumbanis states that these funds would be used to provide a 

BOARD OF SI JPERVLSORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 18, 1992 



larger number of trees for the three projects already specified 
in the proposed reforestation program. 

5. Mr. Mel Baker of the Department of Urban Forestry at 
DPW states that DPW has not yet identified the small local 
businesses that would be retained under the grant program. 
The project budget submitted by DPW includes $146,042 for 
contractual services. However, as previously noted, the 
balance of the proposed grant, in the amount of $36,510, is 
also required to be used for contractual services to procure 
and plant trees. Therefore, the entire proposed grant 
amount of $182,552 should be placed on reserve pending 
identification of the proposed contractors and specific budget 
details for the reforestation projects. 

6. Ms. Mills states that the terms of the grant include a local 
in-kind contribution of at least 35 percent of the total grant 
amount. Based on the proposed grant to the City of $182,552, 
the City would be required to provide an in-kind contribution 
of at least $63,893. Ms. Mills states that maintenance 
services provided within three years after the trees are 
planted can be used to satisfy the in-kind contribution 
requirement. 

The project budget submitted by DPW reflects that the in-kind 
contribution would consist of project planning and 
construction management services valued at $15,000, and 
maintenance costs of $140,680, for a total in-kind contribution 
of $155,680. This is $91,787 more than the required in-kind 
contribution of $63,893. Mr. Roumbanis states that the City's 
actual contribution would be higher than the required in- 
kind contribution because the City would need to remove 550 
trees damaged in the 1990 freeze, before new trees could be 
planted using the proposed grant funds. 

Mr. Baker states that the City's in-kind contribution for 
maintenance of $140,680 is included in DPWs approved 1992- 
93 budget for street tree maintenance. If the proposed grant 
were not accepted and new trees were not planted, Mr. Baker 
states that the City would nonetheless incur costs of 
approximately $70,000 to remove the 550 damaged trees, but 
would not have to expend approximately $70,000 to maintain 
the 3,350 proposed new trees. 

7. In summary, the Budget Analyst notes that DPW will not 
require supplemental appropriations to pay the $36,510 
CDFFP administrative fee and the City's $155,680 in-kind 
contribution. However, the City will transfer $36,510 from 
existing tree maintenance projects to pay the administrative 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

29 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 18, 1992 

fee, resulting in a decrease in some maintenance activities 
for the City's existing trees. If and when the proposed 
reforestation project is completed, the City would be required 
to maintain 3,350 new trees, at an estimated annual cost of 
$70,000. 

The benefit to the City of the proposed grant funds would be a 
total of $182,552 in new funds for tree purchases and planting 
activities. These funds would include $146,042 to purchase 
and plant 550 replacement trees throughout the City 
(estimated by DPW at approximately $82,000), and 
approximately 2,800 trees along Sunset Boulevard and 
Brotherhood Way (estimated by DPW at approximately 
$64,000). In addition, $36,510 would be available to augment 
the number of trees proposed for Sunset Boulevard and 
Brotherhood Way. 

8. The proposed resolution would authorize DPW to apply for, 
accept and expend the proposed grant funds. However, DPW 
applied for the proposed grant in March, 1992. Therefore, the 
title and body of the proposed resolution should be amended tc 
ratify action previously taken by DPW to apply for the 
proposed grant. 

9. The proposed resolution states that indirect costs are not 
included because the proposed grant includes only non-labor 
costs and therefore indirect costs "are not a factor." 
According to Ms. Mills, the U.S. Small Business 
Administration does not allow indirect costs. Therefore, the 
proposed resolution should be amended to reflect that indirect 
costs are not allowed by the Small Business Administration. 

10. The completed Grant Application Information Form 
provided by DPW is attached. 

Recommendation; 1. Amend the title of the proposed resolution to reflect that 
authorization to apply for the proposed grant would apply 
retroactively, and that indirect costs would be waived; 

2. Amend page 1, lines 22 through 24 to read, "Whereas, the 
U.S. Small Business Administration does not allow funding 
for indirect costs and indirect costs are therefore waived; now 
therefore be it..." 

3. Amend the proposed resolution at page 2, line 1 by 
substituting "apply for, retroactive to March 1, 1992," for the 
words "apply for;" 



BOARD OF SUPER VISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

30 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 18, 1992 



4. Amend the proposed resolution to reserve the entire grant 
amount of $182,552 pending identification of contractors and 
specific budget details for the proposed reforestation projects. 

5. Approve the proposed resolution, as amended. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

11 



FROM: ALL 



File Number 



TO: 



415 252 0461 

wwiuuim I 



SOU 16. 1992 3:35PM 8256 
y6952175 



Grant Application Information Form 

a document required to accompany a proposed resolution 
Authorizing a Department to Apply for a Grant 



To: The Board of Supervisors 
Attn: Clerk of the. Board 

The following describes the grant referred to in the accompanying 
resolution: 

Department: PtS#/-/i> Ac/(K£>r __ 



Contact Person: .^^^ S>i c AfeAsAs rf Telephone: 

Project Title: -T^aj-i. /fi/s/M<$fs 7*/c<££ s*'SSA'T/si*£. 
Grant Source: *S*?4 /-<- <c?&'j"ssu'£ j J~ ^.SAt/A'/ 



Proposed (New / Continuation) Grant Project Summary: 

... > 



^v /^^, 



^^oyyo tfy/'^/-/; 



~^/<L£<er S?+t<£ 



/e<£ SZ-0se£ j- 7**7'/'**' o^ fi/SsS^T- tftH/^VstALfi £ ry ^Xyfi^^SasCL 



o o 



.<^<s\r. 




s-s-S~4>?eo 



SsCOtf^ A, 



sr*Ar~st?*' 









& *.€> TAXStL^I OP<d l*/J y 7->T<? tf j*X*A^-SA, C- ^ M0 ^* f TOASTS* * 

\ 

Amount of Grant Funding Applied for: *# / )f l- r^^- 



Maximum Funding Amount Available: Jt^ 2^ °^ t o c V 

Situ 7f\i 



Required Matching Funds : '^j '?$& [jf 3 < ? , r/P tv'/i'^o 7 a*\* J-'t-rJ .<< c>, ■ ■'.-<• t 4 



lumber of Positions Created ondi Funded: S*isn £f+>ssA/<5jy c-PA'T^ ^^T^' 
Amount to be Spent oh Contractual Services: ^ s 1 -*^ €> <?<? /$2 l s£ i_ 

will Contractual Services be put out to Bid? X<^-r 

/ 1 — . ■ i 



i? 



FROM: PILL 

Page 2 



TO: 



415 252 0461 NOU 16. 1992 3:36PM 8256 P. 



rerm of Grant: & as£ y&SJe (sfi/C-ffT /???) 



>ate Department Notified of Available funds? A?J<gA> S*. 



& 



ipplication Due Dote: Shj *cA> S4 Sff?— 



!raht Funding Guidelines end Options (from RFP, grant announcement or 
ippropriations legislation): 



RP 



;»>- 



Aa<- If/far hfcK 






Department Head Approval 



TOTPl. P. 002 



FROM: PILL 



TO: 



415 252 0461 



NOU 16. 1992 3:36PM «256 P. 03 



INTRODUCTION 



The California Department of Forestry and Fire 
(COF) is accepting applications from state and local 
agencies for the allocation of tree planting funds 
program sponsored by the U.S. Small Business Administration 
Grants are available to state and local agencies for the purpose 
of planting trees on state or local government ownep or 
controlled land. 

For further assistance, please contact Jonathaji Rea at 
(916) 6S3-9420 or Don Banghart at (916) 653-9447. 



PROGRAM OVERVIEW 

Funding Instrument! 
Funding i 



Grant 



The total amount of grant dollars available to tb$ State of 
California is $1,743,166. 



Matching Requirements j 



25% of 1st half of project plus 

45% of 2nd half of project, cash or in-kind 

(Matching can include CDF administrative charge) . 



CDF Administrative Charge* 



CDF will charge up to 20% of the grant amount for 
support, payable upon contract signature. 

Closing Time and Date for the Submission of Applicants: 

(J March 16, T992T 5i00 p.m. local time ' "^ 

Project Starting Date: Prior to SeptemEet r ~30T"i992 

Project Duration: 12 months 

Project Completion Date: September 30, 1993 

Authority: Section 24 of the Small Business Act, 15 U.s.c. section 6S1 



Protection 

governmental 
hrough a 



administrative 



"U 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 18, 1992 



Item li - File 25-92-33 



Department 

Item: 



Services tobe 
Performed: 



Description; 



Department of Social Services (DSS) 

Resolution concurring with the Controller's certification 
that Coordinator and Mentor Services for the Independent 
Living Skills Project can be practically performed by a 
private contractor for lower cost than similar work services 
performed by City and County employees. 



Coordinator and Mentor Services include coordination of 
the services of four agencies providing Independent Living 
Skills services contracted through the Department of Social 
Services and mentor services to approximately 80-100 
adolescents (ages 16-19) participating in the Independent 
Living Skills Project. These mentor services include the 
recruitment and training of adult volunteers to serve as 
mentors (counselors) to the adolescents and the 
recruitment and enrollment of the adolescents in various 
support services (i.e., tutorial and job training). 

The Controller has determined that contracting for 
Coordinator and Mentor Services at the Department of 
Social Services for calendar year 1993 would result in 
estimated savings as follows: 





Lowest 

Salary 

Step 


Highest 

Salary 

Step 


Citv Operated Service Costs 






Salaries 
Fringe Benefits 


$40,668 
9.354 


$48,128 
11,069 


Total 


$50,022 


$59,197 


Contracted Service Costs 


46.300 


46.300 


Estimated Savings 


$3,722 


$12,897 



Comments: 



1. According to the Department of Social Services, 
Coordinator and Mentor Services were first certified as 
required by Charter Section 8.300-1 in 1989 and have 
continued to be provided by an outside contractor since then. 

2. The current contract for the Coordinator and Mentor 
Services, which originally was due to expire September 30, 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



is 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 18, 1992 



1992, was extended for three months to December 31, 1992. 
The proposed contract for these services would be for a nine 
month period from January 1, 1993 to September 30, 1993. 

3. Mr. Dave Rees of the DSS advises that this contract is 
funded by Federal Title IV monies and the funder requires 
that the contract be bid competitively each year. According 
to Mr. Rees, the DSS received three proposals in response to 
a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) issued recently by the 
Department. The RFQ was advertised in the Purchaser's 
Bid Job Opportunity bulletin, as well as in the San 
Francisco Independent, the Asian Weekly, the El Bohemio, 
and the Bay Area Reporter. Additionally, the DSS sent out 
individual letters announcing the job opening to 96 agencies 
in the City. The Department selected Ms. Kasey Brenner as 
the most qualified applicant. Ms. Brenner is the current 
contractor for these services. The proposed 1993 contract 
with Ms. Brenner would represent the fourth year that Ms. 
Brenner has provided these contract services. Ms. Brenner 
is not a certified/registered MBE or WBE firm. 

4. The Controller's supplemental questionnaire with the 
Department's responses, including the MBE/WBE status of 
this contract, is attached. 



Recommendation; Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

16 



CHARTER 8.300-1 PROPOSITION J QUESTIONAIRE 

DEPARTMENT 45 Social Services For Time period 10/1/92 to 9/30/93 
CONTRACT SERVICES Coordination and Mentor Services, ILS Program 

1. Who performed services prior to contracting out? 

Service has been contracted out since program was established. It 
has never been performed by City and County employees. 

2. Number of City employees laid off as result of contracting out? 
None. 

3. Explain disposition of employees if they were not laid off? 

Not applicable. Employees had not performed service. 

4. What percent of a City employee's time is spent on services to be 
contracted out. 

None. 

5. Eov long have the services been contracted out? 
4 years. 

6. What was the first fiscal year for a Proposition J certifciation? 
1989-1990 

7. How will contract services meet the goals of your MBE/WBE Action 
Plan. 

It will conform with the plan. RPQ has been conducted. 



David Rees, Contract Manager 
Department Representative 



557-5585 



Telephone Number 



17 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 18, 1992 

Item Ik - File 143-92-5 



Department: 
Item: 



Grant Amount: 
Grant Period: 
Source of Funds: 
Project 
Description: 



Police Department 

Resolution authorizing the Chief of Police of the City and 
County of San Francisco to apply for, accept and expend 
funds in the amount of $110,000 made available through the 
Office of Criminal Justice Planning and agreeing to provide a 
cash match in the amount of $12,222. 

$110,000 

July 1, 1992 to June 30, 1993 

Office of Criminal Justice Planning 

Crime Prevention Expansion Project: Mission Corridor 

The Police Department reports that the Mission Police 
District has the highest number of calls for service in the 
City. According to the Department, calls in the Mission 
District are ten times the City average. The Department 
states that the project target area has a population that is 
among the most diverse in the City, with a high density of 
families and older adults living at or below the poverty level. 
The area also lacks affordable housing, has a high 
unemployment rate and a large number of undocumented 
aliens. Additionally, the Department notes that the area 
contains a significant number of parolees. 

The proposed State grant funds would be used to provide 
services aimed at expanding crime prevention efforts in the 
high crime Mission Corridor area. The grant funds would 
specifically be used for (1) police staff training aimed at crime 
prevention, with an emphasis on victim services and cultural 
and ethnic sensitivity, and (2) community outreach, 
empowerment and organizing, through the coordinated 
efforts of the Community Police Officer Program (CPOP) and 
the San Francisco Safety Awareness for Everybody (SAFE), 
Inc., a community based organization which provides crime 
prevention services. CPOP and SAFE would work with 
Neighborhood Watch groups, the elderly, youth, area service 
providers, community groups, businesses and the City to 
implement new, non-traditional crime prevention activities. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



18 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 18, 1992 



Budget 



Required Match: 

Indirect Costs: 
Comments: 



Program Administration 
Personnel 



Police Captain (.05 FTE) 




$3,000 


Police Officer (.05 FTE) 




1.964 


Subtotal 




$4,964 


Operating Expenses 






OCJP Training Conference 


$300 




Travel 


472 




Contract Services 






S. F. SAFE, Inc. (non-profit) 


78,555 




S. F. Youth Courts, Inc. (non-profit) 


1,500 




Consultant Services 






Cultural/Ethnic Awareness Training 


28,820 




Audit 


1,500 




Subtotal 




111,147 


Indirect Costs 




filll 


Total 


* 


'$122,222 



* The $122,222 program budget amount includes $110,000 in 
State grant monies plus $12,222 in required matching funds. 

$12,222, which is included in the Police Department's 1992-93 
budget. 

$6,111 (5 percent of grant) 

1. As noted above, the proposed grant has a start date of July 

1. 1992. However, the Police Department reports that no 
expenditures have been incurred against these grant funds. 
As such, it is not necessary to amend the proposed legislation 
to authorize the Department to expend the grant funds 
retroactively. 

2. The Police Department reports that the grant application, 
which had a due date of April 13, 1992, has already been 
submitted. Therefore, the proposed legislation should be 
amended to authorize the Department to apply for the 
proposed grant retroactively. 

3. Indirect costs are referenced in the body of the proposed 
legislation but not in the title of the legislation. Therefore the 
proposed legislation should be amended to reference indirect 
costs in the amount of $6,111 in the title of the legislation. 

4. A Disability Access Checklist for this program is included 
in the Board of Supervisors file. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



1Q 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 18, 1992 

5. A summary of the proposed grant, as prepared by the 
Police Department, is attached. 

Recommendation: Amend the proposed resolution to (1) authorize the 
Department to apply for the proposed grant retroactively and 
(2 ) reference indirect costs in the amount of $6,111 in the title 
of the legislation, and approve the proposed resolution as 
amended. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

40 



Grant Application Information Form 

A document required to accompany a proposed resolution 
Authorizing a Department to Apply for a Grant 



To: The Board of Supervisors 
Attn: Clerk of the Board 

The following describes the grant referred to in the accompanying 
reso luticn : 

Department: ^an Francisco Police Department 

Contact Person: L '- Larr Y R V an Telephone: 553 ~ 9177 



Project Title: Crime Prevention Expansion Project: Mission Corridor 
G r ant Soutcp: Office of Criminal Justice Planning 

Proposed (New / Continuation) Grant Project Summary: 

Based upon data gathered via a community needs assessment and crime statistic analysis, 
the San Francisco Police Department has developed an innovative approach to expand 
crime prevention in the high crime, culturally and ethnically diverse target area. Communit 
Police Officer Program (CPOP) has been active in this area for over two years. This 
grant emphasizes SFPD training to increase crime prevention efforts, training in victim 
services and cultural and ethnic sensitivity; community outreach, empowerment and 
organizing using he unique skills of CPOP and San Francisco SAFE, Inc., a community-base 
group that provides crime prevention services to San Franciscans. CPOP and SAFE 
will work with Neighborhood Watch groups, youth elderiy, area service providers, 
community groups, businesses 3nd city government to implement new, non-traditional 
crime prevention activities. 



Amount of Grant Funding Applied for: STIC, 000 .00 



Maximum Funding Amount Available: si 1 000.00 



Required Matching Funds: $ \7 . 212 .00 

Number of Positions Created and Funded: 



Amount to be Spent on Contractual Services: $108,875.00 
Will Contractual Services be out out to 5id? 



NO 



Grant Apci :ccCion 
Paae 2 



nation Form 



r«r.T. of Grarsc: July 1, 1992 through June 30. 1993 
Date Department Notified of Available funds: 
ADDlication Due Date: April 13, I992 



Grant Funding Guidelines and Options (from RrP, grant announcement o: 
appropriations legislation): 

See Attached 



Assessment of Need for Grant Funding: 

With current resources limited, the San Francisco Police Department believes that 
this OCJP grant funding will enable officers to receive necessary training in 
cultural and ethnic sensitivity and victim services. Funding will also 3llow 
expansion of crime prevention efforts in this troubled target area that would not 
otherwise be available. 




Department Head Pkjcrjbji 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 18, 1992 

Item 11 -File 146-92-39.1 



Department: 
Item: 



Grant Amount: 
Grant Period: 
Source of Funds: 
Project 
Description: 



Budget 



Department of Public Health (DPH) 

Resolution authorizing the Department of Public Health, 
Bureau of Epidemiology and Disease Control, to accept and 
expend a grant of $42,402 from the State Department of 
Health Services for an augmentation of immunization 
services; waiving indirect costs. 

$42,402 

July 1, 1992 through June 30, 1993 

California Department of Health Services 

Immunization Services 

The State Department of Health Services previously awarded 
a grant of $94,772 (File 146-92-23.1) to the Department of 
Public Health (DPH) for fiscal year 1992-93 to provide 
immunization services for pregnant women, infants and 
children, and persons at risk of Hepatitis B. The proposed 
grant is an augmentation grant which would provide 3n 
additional $42,402 for this program in order to enhance the 
childhood immunization program. The proposed funds 
would be used to provide expanded hours at 7 district health 
centers by offering evening and Saturday clinics. DPH 
expects the expanded hours to result in a 10 percent increase 
in the number of children who receive timely immunizations 
against tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis. 

Authorization to apply for the proposed augmentation grant 
was approved by the Board of Supervisors through immediate 
adoption on June 15, 1992. 



Personnel FTE 

Registered Nurse .30 
Health Worker II £& 
Total Salaries .80 

Mandatory Fringe Benefits 

Total Personnel 

Travel 

Computer Equipment 

Total Proposed Grant Amount 



Amount 

$15,473 

13,596 

$29,069 



$36,955 

447 

5JXE 

$42,402 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



A3 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 18, 1992 



Required Match: None 



No. of Persons 
Served: 



Indirect Costs: 



Comments: 



Recommendations: 



The expanded access at district health centers will enable 
DPH to immunize approximately 3,200 additional children in 
1992-93. 

DPH reports that it is the policy of the State Department of 
Health Services not to allow indirect costs for this grant 
program. 

1. According to DPH, the computer equipment included in 
the proposed augmentation grant would be used by the 
Registered Nurse for data entry, correspondence, and other 
activities related to the activities of the Saturday and evening 
clinics. According to Ms. Jane Lev of DPH, the Bureau of 
Epidemiology and Disease Control is in the process of seeking 
approval from the Electronic Information Processing 
Steering Committee (EIPSC) for the proposed computer 
equipment. The Budget Analyst therefore recommends that 
$5,000 of the proposed grant funds be placed on reserve 
pending approval of the proposed equipment by EIPSC. 

2. The proposed grant funds will augment the original grant 
for the period July 1, 1992 through June 30, 1993. However, 
Ms. Lev reports that the services funded by the augmentation 
grant will be provided only between January 1, 1993 and June 
30, 1993. Expenses have not been incurred against the 
proposed grant funds, according to Ms. Lev. 

4. The Summary of Grant Request submitted by DPH is 
attached. 

5. Disability Access Checklists for the district health centers 
are on file with the Board of Supervisors. 

1. Amend the proposed resolution to place $5,000 of the 
proposed grant funds on reserve pending approval by EB?SC 
of the computer equipment included in the grant budget. 

2. Approve the proposed resolution, as amended. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



44 



flg HTl Com mhSlgl] - Summary of Grant K«r?UCSt | Rev. 4/10/90 | 



. -if" -r 



: ..„tort; State Dept. of Health Services 
, on tact V Person Les Burd 



Address^ 2151 Berkeley Way 
Jfe. Berkeley. CA 94704 



Amount Requested S , 42,402 

£& From 7/1/92 

^Health Commission _£!££± 



To 



6/30/93 



Division- Comnunity Public Health Ser vice 
Sectlon ' Epidemiology & Disease Con trol 
Contact -Person Carl os R endon 

Telephone 554~2832 

Application Deadline July L 199^-Origlna l G 
Notification Rrpected October 1. 1992 

Board of Supervisors: Finance Committee 11/18/92 ___ . 

Full Board , , 11/23/92 



Request to:feprixfc&(a=ccpt and expend) zHjatabS&iSSS&mS^hsa^&^t (augmentation lo a) | 
piant in the amount of S 42.402 fmm the period of 7/1/92 to -6/30/93 ; 
to pmvirir- inrnunizations \ services. 



I.' Ttem np^crlntlon: 



TT. Stimma'-v: < c~-*x*i. —jsmmAU * ~< •—A—rp-.p «>«*.=*-. ^r^") — **•-; - 

Supplemental funds for augmenting staff to provide for expanded access for inrnunizations 
by offering evening^md'^atu?atla^ a 51"i'ntcs at *t~ Publ4c-Heai-th*-6enters. The implementation 
of these services will be invaluable in preventing disease and protecting the well being 
of our youngest citizens. 



TTT. Outcomes/Objectives: 

The number of 4th doses of dUphthe^y^^t£tarms^^ administered in public clinics 
to children before their 2nd birthday will incjreaseJiy—LOi-points,. compared to the number 
administered to children of identical age during- the preceding-12 month period. - 

TV. TXOff< of , RrriuCt'"T' or- Tr-mJTiat'"" of TVi»<« Fu"d*: 

Expanded clinics would not be available to those who could not come in during regular 
hours thus increasing' the likelihood of some children not adequately irrmunized and 
suseptible to what would have been a preventable disease. 



V. financial Information: 

Col. A 
Two Ycitj Ago 

81,600 



Grant Amount 
Personn el 
Equipment 
"Contract Svc. 
Mat. Sz Supp. 
Facilities/Sp2ce 
Other 
Indirect Costs 



66,247 
5,000 
-0- 
1,750 
-0- 
8,603 



Col. B 



Col- C 



Col. TJ 



Piii Y=«70ri t - Thi s FY. Year o^atc 
94,772 94,772 42,402 



88,012 
-0- 
-0- 
2,035 
-0- 
4,725 



88,695 
-0- 
-0- 

900 
-0- 
5,177 



36,955 
5,000 
-0- 



447 



Rec. Match Anprnvrd Viv 



VTT 



F/T CSC 

P/T CSC 
Contraclual 



W7T 



Source(s) of non-grant funding for salaries of CSC ecnlovees =c^^:i^«• :i:;-::dc on this grant: 
NONE 



Will 



;.2nt funded employees be retained after this ;ran: ::.-c : .:::;s? If so, Kow" 



NO 



-? r \\\?l 



LI Open Bid 



Soi: Sour: 



N/A 



AS 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 18, 1992 

Item lm - File 146-92-40.1 



Department: 



Item: 



Grant Amount: 
Grant Period: 
Source of Funds: 
Project: 
Description: 



Department of Public Health 

Division of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services 

Resolution authorizing the Department of Public Health, 
Division of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services, to 
accept and expend a grant of $283,000 which includes indirect 
costs in the amount of $14,150 based on 5 percent of the total 
award from the State Department of Mental Health Services; 
for consultation, education, and information services to San 
Francisco residents; providing for ratification of actions 
previously taken. 

$283,000 

July 1, 1992 through June 30, 1993 

State Department of Mental Health Services 

Consultation, Education, and Information Services 

The proposed continuation grant would fund 87 percent of the 
1992-93 budget for the Consultation, Education, and 
Information Unit (CEI Unit) of the Department of Public 
Health (DPH) (remaining funds are provided through 
Proposition 99 Tobacco Tax revenues). The program is 
staffed by professional health educators who provide 
information and assistance to community caregivers 
(schools, churches, mental health centers, and service 
coalitions) and provide information and education services to 
individuals under high stress (the severely mentally ill, their 
families and caregivers; immigrants and refugees; single 
parents, and people who might not otherwise receive services 
due to language barriers). According to DPH, these services 
are provided in four languages. 

The State Department of Mental Health Services administers 
these grant funds which are provided by the U.S. Substance 
Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. The 
proposed grant is a continuation grant which has been 
available since the early 1970's. 

DPH reports that the State Department of Mental Health 
Services did not solicit grant applications until August 1992, 
although the grant period began July 1, 1992. As a result, 
DPH reports that expenses have been incurred against the 
proposed grant funds. The proposed resolution would 
therefore ratify actions previously taken. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



46 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 18, 1992 



Budget 



Required Match: 
Indirect Costs: 

Comments: 



Personnel 

Health Program Coordinator 
Mental Health Educator 
Assistant Health Educator 
Clerk Typist 
Total Salaries 



Effi Amount 



.90 
1.75 
1.00 
1.45 
5.10 



Fringe Benefits (21 percent) 

Total Personnel 

Equipment 

Total Direct Costs 

Indirect Costs (5 percent of total grant) 

Total Grant Amount 

None 



$48,737 

83,655 

48,178 

41,403 

$221,973 

46.614 

$268,587 

263 

$268,850 

14.150 

$283,000 



According to DPH, indirect costs are allowed as 5 percent of 
the total grant amount of $283,000, or $14,150. 

1. Personnel costs have been incurred against the proposed 
grant funds since the beginning of the fiscal year on July 1, 
1992. Therefore, as previously noted, the proposed resolution 
would ratify actions previously taken. 

2. The Summary of Grant Request submitted by DPH is 
attached. 

3. A Disability Access Checklist for the Division of 
Community Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services of 
DPH is on file with the Board of Supervisors. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



67 



amiJ ! ."mrTV 





State Dent . of M P n1- a l Hpalfh 


' ■' ' ft 


Person 


Lori McMahan 




.rtss 




1600 9th St. 








Sacramento, CA 


95814 


v mount 


Requested 

From 
Commlsslo 


s 283,000 




"erm: 
lealth 


7/1/92 To 

n 


6/30/93 

Boarc 



Div. of Mental Health, Substance 

Division Ahugp ^Hrirot 

Sect loo Con sul tatinn , FHnration & Tnfnrmal-^nn 
Contact Person Nora Goodf riend-Koven, MP H 
Telephone ( 415) 255-3662 

. ,. ,. n ... September 14, 1992 
Application Deadline 1 \ 

Notification Expected October 30, 1992 



Doard of Supervisors: Finance Committee 
Full Doard 



Ttem Description; Request to Gqepfyxfiox) (accept and expend) a (noaj (continuation) pCiacasm) (j 
,c«k .„»^u« — *) gram in the amount ofS 283,000 ^ ^ period of 7/1/92 to . 

to provide. 



consultation, education & information 



services. 

T Summary; |Cm«tii«7!MliitM < i naW«pMp«xi«aniai ud^n^tei) 

Consultation, Education and Information services are provided to the entire population 

of San Francisco. A team of bilingual, bi-cultural MPH and BA level mental health 
educators provides these outreach and education services which include support groups', 
suicide intervention training and parent skills training. We also consult with DPH 
staff on workshops and training. 

rTT. Outcome s/Qbir ctive ?: 

The population of San Francisco will be more knowledgeable about mental health and 
mental illness and be able to access services when necessary. 



V. F.n>Ct<: of Rfductinr' nr Tfrwitigtinn of Thf<f 'C»n(5*: 

Citizens of San Francisco will not have basic information about mental health and 
mental illness and wj.ll not know how and where to access services when necessary. 



Financial Information: 

FY 90/91' 



Col. 



Grant Amount 
Personnel 

Equipment _ 

Contract Svc. 

Mat. L. Supp. 

Facilities/Space _ 

Other _ 
Indirect Costs'5%)_ 

3£L n ?'? Prnr'CCJn 



i wo Yczn Ago 

283.000 

230.957 



4,646 



7,268 



10,000 

29,329 





VTT 






800 



F/T CSC 
P/T CSC 

.Contractual 



FY 91/92 "FY 92/93 



Col. B 
Put. Ycir/Ont. 
283,000 
250,561 




1,789 
10,000 
16,322 
12,528 



800 



Col. C 

Proposed 

283,000 

267,614 





1,236 











14,150 



Col. T) 




17.053 



- 553 







1,622 



Rec. Match Approved b^ 



Source(s) of non-grant fundin" for salaries of CSC emplovees workic; part-time on this grant: 
Two 2823 Men tal Health Educator funde d partially" through Prop. 99. 

Will grant funded employees be retained after this grant terminates? If so, How? 
Yes, via private foundation funding. They may also be dispersed throughout the 
health department if vacant positions become available. 



•? f ti'?i q.rvir.c; Open Bid 



Sol: So: 



AS 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 18, 1992 

Ttem In -File U6-92-S4 

Department: Department of Public Health (DPH), 

Special Programs for Youth (SPY) 

Item: Resolution authorizing the DPH to apply for, accept and expend 

a grant of $66,774 which includes indirect costs in the amount 
of $11,070 based on 20 percent of salaries and fringe benefits 
from the American Foundation for AIDS Research, to 
investigate the epidemiology of high risk adolescents in San 
Francisco; providing for ratification of action already taken. 

Grant Amount: $66,774 

Grant Period: January 1, 1993 through December 31, 1993 

Source of Funds: American Foundation for AIDS Research 

Project: Investigation of the Epidemiology of High Risk Adolescents in 

San Francisco 

Description: The proposed grant would fund a study of the behavioral risk 

factors for HrV among San Francisco's high risk youth, and to 
evaluate the relationship between client behaviors, Sexually 
Transmitted Diseases (STD) and HrV seropositivity. The data 
would be collected from three community clinics serving San 
Francisco's homeless, runaways and youth involved in the 
juvenile justice system. The results of the study would help DPH 
design intervention policies to prevent the further spread of the 
HIV infection. 

Amount 



Budget: 




FTE 




Epidemiologist I 
Fringe @ 26% 
Subtotal 


1.0 




Indirect Costs @ 20% 







Total Grant Budget 


1.0 


Required Match: 


None 




No. of Persons 
Served: 


San Francisco's HIV hig 


fh risk y 



$43,930 
11.422 



$55,352 

11, 070 
$66,422 



Indirect Costs: $11,070 based on 20 percent of salaries and fringe benefits. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 18, 1992 

Comments: 1. The application for the proposed grant application was 

submitted on August 25, 1992. Therefore, the proposed 
resolution provides for ratification of action already taken. 

2. The DPH submitted a budget of $66,422 for the proposed 
grant. However, the proposed resolution would authorize the 
DPH to apply for, accept and expend a grant of $66,774, or 
$352 more than the DPH's budget. Therefore, the proposed 
resolution should be amended to reduce the grant amount by 
$352, from $66,774 to $66,422. 

3. Attached is the Summary of Grant request form submitted 
by DPH. 

4. A copy of the Disability Checklist is included in the Board of 
Supervisors file. 

Recommendation: Amend the proposed resolution to reduce the grant amount by 
$352, from $66,774 to $66,422 as described in Comment 2. 
Approve the proposed resolution as amended. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



sn 



Grantor ■ AMFRTrRN FOfTNnATTnN FOR ATPS R ESEARCH Division CPH.S 



Contact Ttrson Section J^pH^I P marrire for Y cuttyTcm Waddall 

Address 5900 WLLEhire Bl, 2nd Floor Contact Person Ame fferie Benedicto 

Los Angeles, CA 93036-5032 Telephone 753-7778 

Amount Requested S &>,T14 Application Deadline .Allgilfit 2*}. 1992 

Term: From 01/01/33 To 12/31/93 Notification Expected 



Health Commission Doard of Supervisors: Finance Committee 

Fall Doard 



T. Item Description: Request to (apply for) (accept and expend) a (new) (o 

<c". ' rrr ^ iA *' grant in the amount of S 66,774 from the period of Jan 1 1593 to Dec 31 1993 ' 

in prcnTTifrr ira>pRHrprP By* (apirtarrinlnrjy Ot HTV/ATTF; Pnrrrj high ri^fr arhlppnpnl-.'trrvir^c 

This is a research grant enacbed to study the behavicraL ride factors for HIV among an Francisco's high 
ride youth, and to evaluate the relationship between client berHviors, STDs and HTY sercpositivity. The 
data will hp gathered frcm three cnnnxiitv clinics serving San Francisco's hopeless, runaway and youth 
involved in Htp juvenile justice system. The results of this study will help design inberventicn poli— 

cies to rreafent further F rread of infection. 

TTT. Outcomes/Oblfctlves: 

(1) lb describe the behavioral risk factors for HIV ancng San Francisco's high risk youth; (2) to g^al" - 
ate the relaticnship between client behavicrs/ STXs and HTY serccositivity; (3) To increase the effec- 
tivity of current intervention nrxHs. 

TV. F.ffect* of Re duction or Termination of These Fund*: 

A field of study that- will inract the inplenrentaticn and design of preaent infaenrenticn ntrels vill not 
be developed. Our infeorBtien en rllV-infection and risk enrng San Francisco's high risk youth will not 
be miplete. 

V. Financial Information; « 

Col. A Col. B Col. C Col. D Reg. Match Approved hr 

Two Yean Ago Put Yetr/Orij. Propoted Chin jt 

Grant Amount $66,774 

Personnel 43,930 

Equipment _0 

•Contract Svc. _0 ; 

Mat. & Supp. __0 

Facilities/Space 



Other 11,422 (fr inge) 

Indirect Costs . 11,070 _ 



VT. Data Procaine 

(coatt tndtufed it-:—- _) 

VTT. Personnel 

F/T CSC _ 

P/T CSC _ 

Contractual 



1.0 



Source(s) of non-grant funding for salaries of CSC employees working part-time on this grant: 

n/a 

Will grant funded employees be retained after this grant terminates? If so, Hovr? 
VO. 

•VTIT. C ontractual S'rvic*: Open Bid Sole Source (ir-i>. M «.ois^.«i n brrr'»F,r=) 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 18, 1992 

Item lo - File 146-92-61.1 



Department 
Item: 



Grant Amount: 
Grant Period: 
Source of Funds: 
Project: 
Description' 



Department of Public Health (DPH) 

Resolution authorizing the Department of Public Health to 
accept and expend a grant allocation of $10,782,909 for Fiscal 
Year 1992-93 funding from the State Department of Health 
Services for California Healthcare for Indigents Program 
(CHIP) funds, for medical services to indigent persons, 
professional services, medical services contracts, materials 
and supplies, facilities rental, personal services and indirect 
costs in the amount of $152,841 based on 1.658646 percent of 
County Hospital and other Health Services CHIP allocations. 

Up to $10,782,909 

July 1, 1992 through June 30, 1993 

State Department of Health Services 

California Healthcare for Indigents Program (CHIP) 

In 1988, the State Legislature passed the Tobacco Tax and 
Health Protection Act, as well as Assembly Bill 99 (AB99) and 
Assembly Bill 75 (AB75), which implemented the Tobacco Tax 
legislation. Under AB75, Counties may obtain funds for the 
California Healthcare for Indigents Program (CHIP) in 
order to reimburse hospitals, physicians, and other medical 
service providers for the cost of providing health care services 
to indigent people. 

The proposed resolution would authorize the Department of 
Public Health (DPH) to accept, and expend up to $10,782,909 
in CHIP funds, including $152,841 for indirect costs, for fiscal 
year 1992-93. These funds would be used to reimburse health 
care providers who have enrolled in the program, including 
San Francisco General Hospital, 10 private hospitals, and a 
number of private physicians, for the cost of providing health 
care services to indigent people. 



Budget: 



The proposed $10,782,909 budget includes $152,841 in indirect 
costs, $436,717 in operating expenses for the CHIP program, 
and $10,193,351 for reimbursements to health care providers 
for the cost of providing care to indigent persons. These 
amounts would be distributed among the three Funds as 
follows: 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



52 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 18, 1992 



ALLOCATION OF AB 75 GRANT FUNDS 



Fund 

Hospital Services Fund 
County Hospital (SFGH) 
Private Hospitals 

Physician Services Fund 



Reimbursement 

to Health Care 

Providers 

$6,153,315 
696,108 
748,385 



Indirect 

Costs 

$107,497 



Other Health Services Fund (SFGH) 2.595.543 
Total Grant Allocations $10,193,351 



4 53 4 4 



Admin. 
Expenses 

$220,177 
40,514 
83,153 
92.873 



Total 
Grant 

$6,480,989 
736,622 
831^38 



$152£41 $436,717 $10,782,909 



Personnel and operating expenses for the program are 
budgeted at $624,037 which exceeds the budgeted allocation 
for administrative expenses of $436,717 by $187,320. The 
$187,320 shortfall would be paid by funds carried forward 
from prior years for administrative expenses, according to 
DPH. The $624,037 budget for personnel and operating 
expenses is as follows: 



PERSONNEL 






Salaries 






Class 


FTE 


Amount 


Sr. Clerk Typist 


1.0 


$31^72 


Secretary II 


1.5 


45,702 


Head Accountant 


1.0 


55,439 


Principal Administrative Analyst 


1.0 


68,043 


Systems & Procedures Supervisor 


1.0 


60,249 


Health Worker W 


1.0 


38,707 


Senior Health Planner 


1.0 


50,081 


Contracts Manager 


1.0 


49327 


Salary savings 




(6.714) 



Total Salaries 



8.5 



Fringe Benefits (@ 25.4 percent) 
Total Personnel 



$392,106 



99,506 



$491,612 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 18, 1992 



OPERATING EXPENSES 



Professional Services $78,593 




Equipment Rental 3,627 




Auto Mileage 1,032 




Travel 1,926 




Staff development and training 3,500 




Postage, subscriptions, and printing 4,000 




Telephone 8,981 




Office supplies 1,815 




Furniture 5,878 




Rental of Property 16,848 




Data Processing 725 




Services of City Attorney 5.500 




Total Operating Expenses 


$132,425 


TOTAL PERSONNEL & OPERATING EXPENSES 


$624,037 


1992-93 Grant Funds for Administration 


(436.717) 


Personnel and Operating Expenses to be Paid 




From Funds Carried Forward from Prior Years 


$187,320 



Required Match: None 



No. of Persons 
Served: 

Indirect Costs: 



Comments: 



Approximately 55,500 annually 

Indirect costs, at $152,841 are allowed based on 1.658646 
percent of the combined allocations to the County Hospital 
($6,480,989) and to the Other Health Services Fund 
($2,733,760). (See "Allocation of AB 75 Grant Funds" chart, 
above.) 

1. AB 75 authorizes reimbursements to public and private 
hospitals and to private medical providers for the cost of 
health care for indigent persons. The reimbursements are 
made from three funds established pursuant to the 
legislation. The Hospital Services Fund is used to reimburse 
San Francisco General Hospital and 10 private hospitals. 
The Physician Services Fund is used to reimburse private 
physicians who have enrolled in the program. The Other 
Health Services Fund is used in San Francisco to reimburse 
San Francisco General Hospital for the cost of indigent care. 

According to Mr. Leong of the DPH, the amounts available 
for each fund are determined by the amount of grant funds 
allocated to each fund by the State, and San Francisco has no 
discretion to transfer monies from one fund to another. DPH 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 18, 1992 



must appropriate the monies allocated to the Hospital 
Services Fund and the Physician Services Fund according to 
the mandates of State legislation, according to Mr. Leong. 
DPH does not have discretion to determine what share of the 
Hospital Services Fund will be appropriated to San Francisco 
General Hospital or to private hospitals. 

The Health Commission does have discretion to determine 
how appropriations will be made from the Other Health 
Services Fund, according to Mr. Leong. Mr. Leong states 
that the Health Commission has appropriated these funds to 
San Francisco General Hospital since the inception of the 
CHIP program, and will continue this practice in 1992-93. 

2. According to Ms. Yvonne Lowe of San Francisco General 
Hospital, the Hospital's 1992-93 budget includes $9,091,989 in 
expected revenues under the CHIP program. The total 
amount actually allocated to San Francisco General Hospital 
under the proposed grant would be $8,748,858, or $343,131 less 
than the amount included in San Francisco General 
Hospital's budget. This allocation of $8,748,858 would consist 
of $6,153,315 from the Hospital Services Fund and $2,595,543 
from the Other Health Services Fund. (To see how the 
$8,748,858 ties into the total $10,782,909 grant, see the 
"Allocation of AB 75 Grant Funds" chart, above.) 

3. A summary of Grant Request Form, as prepared by the 
Department, is attached. 

4. A Disability Access Checklist is in the file. 

5. The DPH advises that if grant funds are reduced or 
terminated, personnel would be reduced or terminated 
accordingly. The proposed grant would support 8.5 FTEs. 

6. The proposed grant of $10,782,909 would be $1,631,788, or 
approximately 13 percent, less than the preceding year's 
grant of $12,414,697. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

55 



Rev. 4/10/90 



T Jr , State Health Services Dlrlalo* Public Health 

Contact r George B. (Peter) Abbott' M.D. $ tc tlo« AB 75 Project 

Addre „ 714 P Street, Room 523 - Contact >"«*» Jeffrey Leong AB 75 Coor dlnato 

' Sacramento, CA 94234 • Ttltpaoat SIS 5$4-9l62 

Amount Reqaottd I ' $10.782,909 Application Dtadtlnt no specific date | 

Ttrmt From 07/01/92 T . 06/30/93 Notification *— '" after receipt of *PPlica- 
Health ComaaUaloa 8/11/92 Board of S»per*U*r« Finance Coataltlca , on 



FoB Baird 



y. Ttfm PMtTlptlrai fceqoesta tpp^rfoi (ic ttpt and, expend i (new) (eootiooia») (goaggS) (tugrogititfon to i) 
< Q * ^ I, , " > ' pint in dMIBMM Of I~ fr«niha period of U//U1792 ^06/30/93 

^y^^ f 10,782 909 - g55, 

California Healthcare for Indigents Program (CHIP; 

(See attachment, page 2) 



TTT. OHteniw>«fnMeftt»e«! 
(See attachment, page 2) 



TVj .FTrm rf.BftfBftlnr rrr Trrmlnttlrrn nf Ttinr Fundr; 
(See attachment, page Z) 



V. Flntnclil In form t tip n: 



Col- A, C«rt- 8 g«»t- C • CBL p R>q. Match AnvrnrKi hr 

Two Years Aeo hnYwtlOrii. Ptoooscd Ctmt* 



Grant Amount $17,023,89 8 $12,414,69 7 10,782,909 

Personnel 4b4,4/ 5 g>7 ,43 6 411,451 

Eqcipatat u _ 10, 4D p 

'Contract Src gglg ? .. 31,60 6 

Mat. ft Snpp. 8.U0 8,63 8 8.418 

Facllitles/Spaea 71,40 1^» 84 8 16.848 

Otaar H'723,11 2 10,193,351 

ladlract Com 2Q0 »36 1 156,64 152.841 

S3. Pitt T > rpff«T"t , ,, . 

(not applicable) 



V- 



V TT. frnnnn.tt 
F/T CSC 
P/T CSC 
Coatractaal 



(not applicable) 



Soarct(i) of aoa-trant funding for (alariu of CSC employee* working psrt-tlme on this graett 

(Not applicable ) 

Will tract funded employee* be retained after this grant terminate*? If so, Ho*? 

AB 99 legislation authorizes continuation of CHIP fundlns through June 30, 1994, 
a percentage of which Is used for administrative personnel costs. 

*VTTT. Cnntr.rn,! c f rrlrm ft f" Bid x Sols Snares (a—— .—»*-»— a. u- 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 18, 1992 

Item 2 - File 188-92-1 

Note: This item was continued from the Finance Committee meeting of November 
4, 1992. 

1. This is a hearing to consider the fiscal impact of the 1987 contracts with 
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) and the Modesto and Turlock Irrigation 
Districts (M/TID)for the purchase and sale of Hetch Hetchy hydroelectric power. 
When this item was last heard by the Finance Committee, on October 21, 1992, 
specific questions were asked by the Committee to the Budget Analyst, the Hetch 
Hetchy General Manager and the City Attorney. This report addresses those 
questions. 

2. Chronology of Contract Negotiations - Attachment 1 is a copy of the City 
Attorney's memorandum concerning the history of negotiations between the City 
and County of San Francisco, the Pacific Gas & Electric Company and the 
Modesto/Turlock Irrigation Districts. 

3. The Results of Contract Negotiations with the Districts - Attachment 2 
to this report provides a memorandum from Hetch Hetchy and the City Attorney 
entitled "Benefits and Obligations of the Power Contracts with The Modesto 
Irrigation District, Turlock Irrigation District and Pacific Gas & Electric Company" 
in response to this inquiry from the Finance Committee. 

4. The City's Options for Re-negotiation of the Contracts - A separate 
memorandum explaining the City's options regarding re-negotiation of the terms 
and conditions of the PG&E and M/TTD contracts is being prepared by the City 
Attorney and Hetch Hetchy. As of the writing of this report, this memorandum is 
not available. 

5. Reconciliation of Financial Information with San Francisco Bav 
Guardian newspaper article - The Budget Analyst was directed to analyze data 
published in a newspaper article printed in the SF Bay Guardian regarding 
historical trends in equity transfers of surplus funds from Hetch Hetchy to the 
General Fund and the costs and benefits of transactions between Hetch Hetchy, 
PG&E and M/TID over a sixteen-month period beginning in March 1991 and ending 
June 1992. This review is discussed below: 

Eauitv Transfers to the General Fund - The graph below provides a 
history of transfers to the General Fund for the ten-year period beginning with 
fiscal year 1983-84 and ending with the current, 1992-93 fiscal year. The chart 
below shows that the graph printed in the Bay Guardian article was substantially 
correct. However, the scale of the Bay Guardian chart served to exaggerate the 
relative differences between annual transfer amounts by depicting the transfers 
over a truncated range of $10 million to $50 million rather than the full range of 
zero to $50 million. 



board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 18, 1992 



Equity Transfers to the General Fund bv Fis cal Year (thousands) 



$50,000 
$45,000 
$40,000 
$35,000 
$30,000 
$25,000 
$20,000 
$15,000 
$10,000 
$5,000 
$0 



: '■ 




Charter Section 6.407 specifies the manner in which sin-plus funds may be 
transferred from utility funds (i.e. Hetch Hetchy and the Water Department) to the 
General Fund. Essentially, up to 25% of a preceding fiscal year's surplus may be 
transferred to the General Fund after accounting for operations, maintenance and 
repair and needed capital acquisitions and improvements. Therefore, equity 
transfers to the General Fund do not entirely result from prior year sales of Hetch 
Hetchy's hydroelectric power, but also depend on expenditures for operating and 
capital costs, other revenue such as the sale of water, and surplus balances from 
past years that had not been transferred to the General Fund. 

A further complication that must be taken into consideration when reviewing 
Hetch Hetchy transfers to the General Fund is of course the effects of recent 
drought years on the system's water supply and resulting net revenue from the 
generation of hydroelectric power. The chart on the following page shows the 
relationships between these factors. 

The chart on the next page compares equity transfers from Hetch Hetchy to 
the General Fund on a fiscal year basis with prior year (PY) values for net power 
revenue (total hydroelectric power sold less the costs of PG&E services such as 
transmission expense and capacity reserve costs and the purchase of power 
purchased from PG&E in order to meet contractual obligations). 

Also shown on the chart are values for Prior Year Natural Flow, a measure of 
total inflows, in acre-feet, for the Tuolumne River system. This provides a relative 
comparison, on a year-to-year basis, of water supply available to Hetch Hetchy for 
reservoir storage and hydroelectric power generation. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

Budget Analyst 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 18, 1992 



Comparison of Net Power Revenue. Equity Transfers to 
General Fund and Water Flow 



Water Flow 
-r 6,000 




Source data for the two charts shown above and on the preceding page are 
displayed below. 





PYNet 








Power 


Equity 


PY Natural 




Revenue 


Transfers 


Flow (1,000 


Fiscal Yr. 


(thousands) 


(thousands) 


Acre-feet) 


1983-84 


$60,350 


$33,295 


4,245 


1984-85 


$59,552 


$31,000 


3,243 


1985-86 


$47,252 


$50,000 


855 


1986-87 


$60,069 


$46,000 


3,286 


1987-88 


$36,740 


$40,000 


833 


1988-89 


$28,665 


$25,000 


808 


1989-90 


$27,156 


$25,000 


1,302 


1990-91 


$34,967 


$15,000 


864 


1991-92 


$18,220 


$11,000 


1,035 


1992-93 


$33,592 


$22,600 


851 


Hoard of Supervisors 






Budget Analyst 





SQ 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 18, 1992 

6. Costs and Benefits from the Purchase of Supplemental Power from 
PG&E to meet M/TID demand - The Finance Committee has directed the Budget 
Analyst to reconcile the differences between data reported by the Bay Guardian and 
Hetch Hetchy. The Bay Guardian reported that Hetch Hetchy lost approximately 
$10.7 million over a sixteen-month period between March 1991 and June 1992. 
After conferring with Bay Guardian staff, the Budget Analyst was informed that 
their estimate of PG&E bills for services and the purchase of supplemental power 
was based on projections, of computed average payments by M/TID for such 
purchased power. The Bay Guardian staff then added the cost of capacity reserve 
payments to arrive at the $10.7 million loss figure. These calculations are 
summarized below: 

Bav Guardian Calculations for Period of March 91 to June 92 
(in millions) 

Calculated cost of Purchased Power from PG&E $ ( 17.3) 

Projected M/TID Payments for Purchased Power 12.9 

"Sales Loss" $ (4.4) 

Mandatory Capacity Reserve Charge (6.3) 

Total Loss $(10.7) 



In contrast to the Bay Guardian calculations shown above, Hetch Hetchy 
reports that during the same sixteen-month period, the City paid PG&E less than 
$6.2 million for "supplemental power" to meet the Districts' demands and charged 
the M/TID over $6.6 million for the same supplemental power, thereby realizing a 
net benefit of over $400,000 instead of the Bay Guardian's calculated "Sales Loss" of 
$4.4 million. Hetch Hetchy also reports that Capacity Reserve payments to PG&E 
over that same period amounted to $5.98 million, but that this expenditure was 
necessary not only to guarantee supplemental power but to provide "firm capacity" 
for all power generated by Hetch Hetchy, thereby assuring total revenues from 
M/TID of $27.6 million including not only the sale of power purchased from PG&E 
but also power generated by Hetch Hetchy itself. 

According to Hetch Hetchy, if capacity reserves were not guaranteed by 
PG&E, the City would not be able to sell power at firm power rates and therefore 
would not have realized total revenues of $27.6 million over this period. Hetch 
Hetchy further adds that the contract with PG&E provides "capacity reserve 
credits" which reduced supplemental power purchase costs by $7.3 million over the 
period analyzed. 

The Finance Committee also directed the Budget Analyst to review billings 
from PG&E and payments by M/TID. As of the writing of this report, the Budget 
Analyst has received source data and an explanation of the PG&E billings for 
services to the City during the applicable time period. 

Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 18, 1992 

7. Power Market Analysis - The Finance Committee also directed the Budget 
Analyst to review any alternative market data or analyses for the services provided 
by PG&E to the City and long-term power sales agreements comparable to the 
City's contracts with M/TID. 

Hetch Hetchy reports that no alternatives exist to the transmission, fir ming 
and other services provided by PG&E to the City. Therefore, they are unable to 
provide meaningful data to compare with the PG&E agreement. 

Hetch Hetchy consultants, Stone & Webster, Inc. have provided a review of 
seven other long term power sales agreements in comparison to the City contracts 
with M/TID. The consultants note many factors that make comparisons difficult, 
such as the buyer/seller relationships, the years the agreements were initiated, the 
terms of the contracts, energy requirements and delivery contingencies. Such 
factors can cause variations in power prices of between 5% and 25% according to the 
consultants. 

Hetch Hetchy's consultants conclude that, while acknowledging these 
differences, the City's current price for Class 3 power sold to M/TID of 40 mills per 
kilowatt hour ($.04) is at the low end of the market, which ranges from 40 to 50 
mills per kilowatt hour. The Budget Analyst notes that this difference between the 
M/TED contract and other long term markets remains substantially unchanged from 
prior reports by the Budget Analyst, based on surveys performed by Hetch Hetchy's 
consultants in 1984 and 1988. In these prior reports, the Budget Analyst concluded 
that if the M/TID agreements reflected other market data provided by Hetch 
Hetchy's consultants, then the City would realize substantially greater revenues. 

Despite the fact that greater revenues could be achieved if the M/TED 
agreements were comparable to other long term sales contracts, according to Hetch 
Hetchy and the City Attorney, no opportunities exist to modify the existing M/TID 
agreements through re-negotiation under the contract terms and conditions. 

As explained in Attachment 2 to this report, Hetch Hetchy believes that other 
contract features provide favorable financial results to the City. These include the 
fact that the Districts must pay for all firm power up to the project dependable 
capacity of 260 megawatts whether they use such power or not (i.e. "take or pay"), 
that the City can automatically increase power and energy for its municipal needs 
thereby reducing power supplied to the Districts, and that the City's rates for Class 
3 power sold to the Districts escalate based on PG&E's average revenue for energy 
and not City costs for hydroelectric generation. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

Budget Analyst 
fii 



Attachment 1 
Page 1 of 3 



CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 



LOUISE H. RENNE 

CITY ATTORNEY 

CITY HALL 



DATE: 
TO: 

THROUGH: 

FROM: 
RE: 



WATER SECTION 

Thomas M. Berliner 

Joshua D. Milstein 

John S. Roddy 

Chrishiane Hayashi Trippe 

Deputy City Attorneys 

(415) 554-4295 



MEMORANDUM 

October 30, 1992 

SUPERVISOR JIM GONZALES 
Chair, Finance Committee 
Board of Superv: 




ANSON B. MORAN 

General Manage] 

Hetch Hetchy Waf^t-- rfnd Power 

THOMAS M. BERLINER r^ 
Deputy City Attorney 

History of Negotiations With Pacific Gas & Electric 
Company and the Modesto and Turlock Irrigation 
Districts Concerning Power Sales Contracts 
(Our Ref. No. P0019/84) 



Pursuant to your reguest attached is a chronology of events 
leading up to the current power sales contracts with PG&E and the 
Modesto and Turlock Irrigation Districts (sometimes referred to 
as MID, TID or collectively as "Districts"). 



T . M . B 



Enclosure 



w/ enc . 
Sup. Hallinan 
Sup. Migden 
Budget Analyst 
T. La key 



1470P/3 



6? 



Attachment 1 
Fage 2 of 3 

CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS RELATING TO POWER CONTRACTS WITH THE MODESTO 
IRRIGATION DISTRICT, TURLOCK IRRIGATION DISTRICT AND PACIFIC GAS 
AND ELECTRIC COMPANY 



DATES COMME NTS 



1945 City signs contract with PG&E for supplemental 

power and support services. (Contract expires 
1987, per amendments.) 

1973 City signs power sales contracts with Districts. 

Sold total output of Hetch Hetchy Project as 
"firm" power . 

Nov. 1973 OPEC oil crisis escalated market rates. Over 
next several years City derived substantial 
revenues from PG&E "assigned customers." 

1978 City unsuccessfully litigates with Districts to 
raise rates for power. 

1979 Airlines unsuccessfully sue City re power of PUC 
to set rates. 

July, 1980 Hetch Hetchy solicits 15 public agencies for 
interest in purchase of Hetcli Hetchy power. 

1981 Hetch Hetchy consultant, Auslam & Associates, 

recommended Districts, Western Area Power 
Administration (WAPA) as potential customers. 

1981-19821/ PG&E informs City that next PG&E contract would 

be on same terms as current contract, but without 
assigned customers. 

1981-1982 City negotiates with Districts on basis of PG&E 
representations . 

1983 PG&E changes contract parameters and informs City 

that if City negotiates firm power sales 
contracts, City must pay for firming services. 
(See 1981-82.) PG&E elects to contract directly 
with Districts for support services. 

PG&E discovers failure to escalate rate base from 
1973. Cost to PG&E of approximately $4 
mi 11 ion/year . 



1/ In late 1981 or early 1982, PG&E orally informed Dean 
Coffey - exact date unknown. 



63 



A t tac hment 1 
'Page 3 ot 3 



DATES COMMENTS 



1983 Districts discuss purchase of firm power from 
City. Districts will purchase additional power 
elsewhere . 

Late 1983 Districts contend Hetch Hetchy not firm power so 
would pay us "dump power" (5-7 mills). Hetch 
Hetchy discusses firming with PG&E. City 
negotiates with Districts concerning firm power 
rates . 

1984 Auslam and Associates' report recommends sale 
price of between 30-40 mills/kwh based upon 
amounts of power available from Pacific Northwest 
and Southwest. 

Aug. 1984 MID prepared to sign contract with City; breaks 
away from TID. Proposed contract at 40 mills. 

Sept. 1984 Rep. Tony Coelho's introduces legislation for TID 
to compel City power sales at "cost." 
Legislation passes House of Representatives. 
Sen. Wilson objects on procedural grounds. City 
negotiates with Districts, meets with Rep. 
Coelho. Coelho outlines terms for agreement 
including: 30-year contract, price of 23 mills, 
District priority to power, right to use excess 
Hetch Hetchy transmission and capacity, and other 
conditions . 

Sept. 1984 City and Districts sign "principles." 

May, 1985 Board of Supervisors approves 2-1/2 year "Interim 
Agreements" with Districts. City to sell bulk of 
power above City's municipal needs to Districts 
for 30 years, at 36.25 mills (price includes 
capacity charge), plus escalation, and other 
"Coelho" terms. 

June, 1985 Prior contracts with Districts expire. Replaced 
by Interim Agreement. 

July, 1985 City and Districts sign "Amplil Led Pi Lnciples." 

Dec. 1987 PG&E 1945 contract, as amended, expires. 

Jan. 1988 "Extension Agreement" with Districts becomes 

effective. Present agreement with PG&E becomes 

ef feet i ve . 

Feb. 1988 Board of Supervisors hearing on powei contracl 

April, 1988 Long Term Agreements with Districts bei "me 
effect i ve . 

1470P/4 



64 



CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 



Attachment 2_ 
Page 1 of - 6" 



LOUISE H. RENN6 

CITY ATTORNEY 

CITY HALL 



WATER SECTION 

Thomas M. Berliner 

Joshua D. Milstein 

John S. Roddy 

Christiane Hayashi Trippe 

Deputy City Attorneys 



(415) 554-4295 
M..E M ORANDUM 



DATE: 



November 5, 19 92 



TO: 



FROM: 



RE 



THE HONORABLE JIM GONZALEZ 
Chair, Finance Committee 
Board of Supervisors 

ANSON B . MORAN ( f£j\ 

General ManageA ' J 

Hetch Hetchy Wafcea^and Power 

THOMAS M. BERLINER 

Deputy City Attorney 

Benefits and Obligations of the Power Contracts With 
the Modesto Irrigation District, TurlocK Irrigation 
District and Pacific Gas & Electric Company 
(Our Ref. No. P0019/84) 



Pursuant to your request, the following summarizes the 
benefits and obligations which resulted generally from the power 
sales contracts with the Modesto Irrigation District and Turlock 
Irrigation District, and the support services contract with 
Pacific Gas & Electric Company. 



You 
Districts 
debate bo 
of Superv 
contracts 
analysis 
consul tan 
analyze t 
condition 
the contr 
revenues 



will 
and t 
th bef 
isors . 
- inc 
by PUC 
t s , in 
he con 
Bas 
acts p 
over p 



recal 
he PG 
ore t 
The 
ludin 
staf 
cludi 
tract 
ed up 
rovid 
rior 



1 that 
&E cont 
he Publ 
re were 
g one w 
f, the 
ng cons 
s in t h 
on this 
ed the 
contrac 



both the C 
ract recei 
ic Utiliti 

numerous 
hich Mayor 
Budget Ana 
ultants re 
eir post-n 

analysis , 
City with 
ts, met th 



ity contrac 
ved extensi 
es Commissi 
hearings co 

Agnos atte 
lyst, and o 
tained spec 
egoti ated, 

City leade 
a substanti 
e City ' s ne 



ts wi 
ve an 
on an 

ncern 
nded, 
utsid 
i t" i c a 
pre-a 
rs co 
al in 
eds f 



th the 
alysis and 
d the Board 
ing both 

extensive 
e 

lly to 
cceptance 
ncluded that 
crease in 
or disposal 



Attachment 2 
THE HONORABLE JIM GONZALEZ Page 2 of t> 

Chair, Finance Committee 2 November 5, 1992 

Board of Supervisors 1508P 

of its Hetch Hetchy power, and protected the City from system 
failures and water supply shortages due to drought. 

In reviewing the benefits and obligations, one must keep in 
mind that each party to a contract will have its own vision of 
the benefits and obligations which accrued. Furthermore, during 
the life of a contract, depending upon events, what may have 
started out to be a benefit or obligation in general, may not be 
perceived as such at all times. 

BENEFIT S AND OB LI GATIONS OF POWER SALES C ONTRACTS TO THE 
MODES TO IRRIGATION AND TURLOCK IRRIGAT ION DISTRICT. 

The agreements between the City and Districts are in two 
parts. The first phase of the agreement lasted 2-1/2 years. It 
was known as the "Interim" agreement. The second phase of the 
agreement is the "long-term" agreement and covers the remaining 
27-1/2 years of the contract. The terms and conditions of both 
the Interim and long-term agreements were dictated in large part 
by the principles agreed to in 1984. These principles were the 
result of an intensive negotiation during the month of September, 
1904 following the introduction by Rep. Tony Coehlo of 
legislation which would have prevented the City from selling its 
Hetch Hetchy power for a profit. The basic principles and the 
subsequent amplification to these principles formed the basis for 
the long term agreement which is now in effect. The major 
provisions are set forth below. 

BENEFITS . 

1. During the first 2-1/2 years of the agreement (Interim 
Agreement) all sales by the City to the Districts were deemed 
"firm.' 1 This maximized revenues from City power. 

2. During the first 2-1/2 years of the agreement (Interim 
Agreement) the Districts were obligated to pay for half of the 
charges from PG&E for firming services. This was a "pass 
through" of PG&E charges. 

3. The Districts will pay a portion of the firming costs 
($700,000 per year) to "firm" their Class 1 power entitlements 
under the Raker Act. Prior to this contract, their Class 1 power 
entitlements were on an "as available" basis. 

4. The Districts must pay for firm power up to 260 MW, 
whether they use it or not (i.e. "take or pay"). That is, the 
Districts are obligated to pay the City during the life of the 
contract for the amount of power that they have committed to 



Atta chm ent 2 
THE HONORABLE JIM GONZALEZ Page T~ of 6 

Chair, Finance Committee 3 November 5, 1992 

Board of Supervisors 1508P 

purchase. Should the Districts develop other resources which 
could provide them power cheaper than available from this 
contract, they will nevertheless have to pay the City for the 
full amount of their committment. 

5. The price for Class 3 (commercial) power was initially 
established on the basis of a market rate and will escalate 
pursuant to increases in PG&E rates. 

5.1 Rate changes will be based on a 5-year trend 

analysis of PG&E rates, thereby smoothing sharp 
increases or decreases in rates. 

6. The Districts must purchase firm power at a 65% 
"capacity factor." This capacity factor recognizes the City's 
need to balance its primary water supply obligations with its 
firm power committments. 

7. If the project dependable capacity (PDC) of the Hetch 
Hetchy project decreases, the City will reduce its obligation to 
the Districts. If PDC is decreased due to an "uncontrollable 
force," the City is obligated to meet the initial PDC for only 90 
days . 

8. If the City's municipal load increases, it will reduce 
its firm capacity committments to the Districts by an equivalent 
amount . 

9. Half of all excess energy generated by the Hetch Hetchy 
project may be served to the City's airport tenant customers. In 
the event excess energy is generated above that required by the 
Districts, the City may serve this energy to Norris Industries 
and PG&E assigned customers. 

v 10. The rate for non-firm energy is the lower of the firm 
energy rate for Class 3 purchases or the rate available to the 
City under long term alternative non-firm sales agreements. The 
initial alternative rate is established at the energy cost 
adjustment clause (ECAC) or fuel cost component of an applicable 
PG&E rate approved by the California Public Utilities 
Commission. The ECAC rate is a very competitive rate at this 
time . 

11. In the event of "uncontrollable forces" the City's 
performance under the contract will be excused under specified 
ci rcum3tances . 



Attachment 2 
THE HONORABLE JIM GONZALEZ Page h of 6 

Chair, Finance Committee 4 November 5, 1992 

Board of Supervisors 1508P 

12. The Districts and City agree not to initiate, cause, 
support or engage in any attempt to frustrate the terms and 
conditions of this agreement or the integrity of the Raker Act. 

13. If third parties cause impacts to either the contract 
or the Raker Act which diminish the benefits of the agreement, 
the parties agree to amend the agreement so as to realize the 
mutual benefits anticipated by the agreement. 

OBL IGATIONS . 

1. The City is committed to selling power to the Districts 
for a total of 30 years. The contract expires June, 2015. 

2. Since the Districts are paying for firming services, 
the City must supply the Districts with Class 1 power even if it 
is not rotherwise available from Hetch Hetchy. 

3. The rate for Class 3 power will escalate based on a 
five-year trend analysis of PG&E rates. This will cause rate 
changes to lag somewhat, however it will have the impact of 
smoothing rates rather than causing sharp increases or 
decreases . 

4. If excess capacity exists above the Hetch Hetchy 
project dependable capacity (PDC) of 260 MW, the Districts have 
the right to make use of it, but must pay the City for any 
additional costs incurred to serve airport tenants. Costs for 
other customers are not recoverable. 

5. If the City increases the PDC of the Hetch Hetchy 
project, the Districts are entitled to purchase the increase in 
firm capacity. 

6. The Districts have a right of first refusal to at least 
one-half of the available non-firm energy generated by the Hetch 
Hetchy project. 

7. The Districts may use excess transmission capacity of 
the Hetch Hetchy lines to the extent such usage does not 
interfere with the City's use of the transmission facilities. 

BENE FITS A ND OBLIG ATIONS FROM THE 
SUPPORT SERVICES CONTRACT WITH PG &E . 

BENEFITS . 

1. The contract with PG&E is for the same length of time 
as the contracts with the Districts. 



Attachmen t 2 
THE HONORABLE JIM GONZALEZ Fage b of ~E~ 

chair. Finance Committee 5 November 5, 1992 
Board of Supervisors 1508P 

2. PG&E must provide the City with the firming services 
City requests for City's municipal loads and firm sales to 
Districts . 

3. Services from PG&E are on "if and as needed basis." 
There is no charge for services not used. 

4. PG&E will provide supplemental power when Hetch Hetchy 
generation is not sufficient to meet its firm committments or is 
needed for maintenance or emergency outages. 

5. PG&E provides capacity reserve services for Hetch 
Hetchy for use during emergency and maintenance outages. 

6. PG&E will provide up to 59.8 MW of capacity credits 
against purchases of supplemental power. The City/PG&E contract 
is the: only PG&E contract which contains this provision. 

7. In the event the City needs to purchase supplemental 
capacity in excess of the available capacity credit for District 
obligations, it will not be charged a premium for purchases 
during peak periods nor will it be required to pay for this 
capacity in months when it is not used. That is, there is no 

■ rachet." (The "rachet" does apply to purchases for airport 
tenants and Norris Industries.) 

8. The City obtained firm committments for the 
transmission of Hetch Hetchy power to the City for municipal 
needs and the right to purchase up to 200 MW of transmission in 
order to meet future increases in the City's municipal load. 

9. Disagreements over rates may be litigated before the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) which limits rates to 
"cost of service," which includes the authorized rate of return. 

10. If more economical energy is available from other 
sources, the City may purchase it without obligation or penalty 
to PG&E. 

11. If more economical power or services are available 
from other sources, the City may purchase them subject to 
notifying PG&E, and PG&E may request contract renegotiation as a 
result of City's purchase decisions. 

12. The City will be entitled to sell excess energy to 
PG&E's' large industrial customers, i.e. "assigned customers." 
The Ci'ty/PG&E contract is the only PG&E contract which contains 
this provision. 



fig 



THE HONORABLE JIM GONZALEZ Att a chmen t 2 

Chair, Finance Committee 6 November 5, 199? a S e & of F 

Board of Supervisors 1508P 

OBLIGATIONS . 

1. The City must purchase capacity reserves from PG&E 
since at present PG&E is the only provider. 

2. In the event City needs to purchase supplemental 
capacity for airport tenants or Norris Industries, a "rachet" 
will apply which will raise the quantity of capacity which the 
City must purchase for these customers to the highest demand in 
the current month or the preceeding 11 months, which ever is 
greater. 

3. The only available transmission and distribution path 
for the delivery of Hetch Hetchy power to the City for its 
municipal needs is through PG&E. The City must purchase and pay 
for these services. 

4. Rates under the contract are subject to periodic 
renegotiation. (This issue is placed in the "obligation- 
category because it is expected that under normal circumstances 
rates will increase, not decrease.) 

A.B.M./T.M.B. 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 18, 1992 

Item 3 - File 100-92-9 

Note: This item was continued from the November 4, 1992 Finance 

Committee meeting. 

This item is a hearing to consider the City's efforts to secure anticipated 
revenues and fund transfers needed to balance the 1992-93 fiscal year budget for 
the City and County of San Francisco. 

On October 27, 1992 a joint report was issued by the Mayor's Budget Office, 
the Controller and the Budget Analyst on the status of matters which are still 
pending action to balance the FY 1992-93 budget. These matters include the 
following: 

Airport Advance - ($25 million) Ms. Angela Gittens of the Airport reports that 
the airlines met on November 6, 1992 to further discuss revisions to the proposed 
agreement. A copy of the revised agreement is in the Board file. As of the writing of 
this report, Ms. Gittens indicates that all of the 19 airlines have agreed to the 
proposed arrangements regarding the $25 million advance to the City. 

PUC Eauitv Transfers and Land Sale - ($7.2 million) These PUC funds 
include equity transfers from the Water Department ($2.5 million), Hetch Hetchy 
($2.5 million) and the revenues from the sale of Water Department property to the 
Olympic Club ($2.2 million). Mr. Ed Harrington, the City Controller, reports that 
agreement has been reached with the City Attorney regarding the PUC Equity 
Transfers and that the PUC is currently drafting the necessary documents to enable 
these fund transfers to occur. 

Port Transfer - ($1 million) The FY 1992-93 budget approved by the Board of 
Supervisors already includes the $1 million transfer from the Port to the City's 
General Fund. However, the City Attorney has raised some questions regarding the 
legality of this transfer of funds, and is currently reviewing this issue. The City 
Attorney is anticipated to issue an opinion on this matter, in the immediate future. 

On October 27, 1992, the Chair of the Finance Committee wrote a letter to 
Mayor Jordan requesting that these budget matters proposed by the Mayor as part 
of the 1992-93 budget be expedited by the Mayor's Office to enable the City's 1992- 
93 budget to be balanced. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

71 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 18, 1992 

Item 4 - File 198-92-3 

Department: Municipal Court 

Item: Resolution authorizing the appointment of a Commissioner 

for the San Francisco Municipal Court and assuming all 
costs as required by State Law. 

Description: In 1992 the State legislature amended the State Government 

Code Section 70141 to allow the San Francisco Municipal 
Court to appoint one additional Commissioner position. The 
State Government Code is the embodiment of State legislative 
policy that regulates operations of the Municipal Courts and 
designates the number of Judges and Commissioners which 
each Municipal Court may appoint. Pursuant to State Law 
(Government Code and Code of Civil Procedure) a 
Commissioner may set bail for prisoners and may determine 
whether a prisoner may be released from custody on their 
own recognizance 

In an effort to reduce overcrowding at the County Jails, the 
San Francisco Municipal Court is proposing to appoint one 
new Commissioner for the purpose of reviewing new cases to 
determine if the accused persons can be released on their 
own recognizance instead of being incarcerated in the County 
Jails while awaiting trial. The proposed new Commissioner 
position would be appointed for a six-month period as a pilot 
project to determine the extent that jail overcrowding could be 
reduced by having a Commissioner that would deal 
exclusively with own recognizance determinations. The 
function of reviewing cases for releasing on own 
recognizance is currently performed by a regular Judge on 
lunch hours and in the afternoons after the Judge's regular 
duties have been completed. According to the Municipal 
Court, the Judge's regular duties must be curtailed promptly 
at 4:00 P.M., in order for the Judge to have the time necessary 
to complete all own recognizance reviews, even when such 
curtailment is not convenient for the matter at hand. 
Presently there are ten Commissioners at the Superior Court 
who hear domestic relations, probate, civil and juvenile cases 
and three Traffic Referees at the Municipal Court who hear 
parking, moving protest and small claim cases. The 
Municipal Court would like to upgrade the Traffic Referees to 
Commissioner status in order to allow them to hear a greater 
variety of types of cases. There are currently no 
Commissioners at the Municipal Court. However, the 
proposed resolution is to establish one new Commissioner 
position. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 18, 1992 

The proposed new Commissioner's salary would be set at 85 
percent of a Municipal Court Judge's salary, or at $77,081 
annually plus fringe benefits of approximately $19,270. 
According to Mr. Gordon Park-Li, the Administrator of the 
Municipal Court, the Special Master appointed by the Federal 
Court to monitor the Jail Overcrowding Consent Decree (for 
the case of Stone vs. the City and County of San Francisco) 
has determined that the fines levied against the City for not 
complying with the Consent Decree (currently totaling 
approximately $2.9 million) can be used as the source of 
funding for the proposed new Commissioner position and 
any, corresponding support staff service costs. However, Mr. 
Park-Li indicates that there would not be any additional costs 
for support staff services for the proposed new Commissioner 
position because such services are currently being performed 
by existing Municipal Court staff. 

Comments: 1. The proposed resolution would simply establish the intent 

of the Board of Supervisors to establish one new 
Commissioner position. However, the proposed resolution 
would not amend the Annual Salary Ordinance to create a 
new position and would not amend the Annual 
Appropriation Ordinance to budget the funding for the new 
position. Therefore, if the Board of Supervisors approves this 
proposed resolution, the Municipal Court would then submit 
separate legislation to amend the Annual Salary Ordinance 
and to amend the Annual Appropriation Ordinance. 

2. During the six month pilot project, the affects of the new 
Commissioner position on reductions in jail overcrowding 
will be assessed before the proposed new position would be 
requested as a permanent position in the Municipal Court's 
1993-94 budget. Therefore, the proposed resolution should be 
amended to stipulate that the proposed new Commissioner is 
a limited term (L classification) position. 

Recommendations: 1. Amend the proposed resolution to stipulate that the 
proposed new Commissioner is a limited term (L 
classification) position. 

2. Approval of the proposed resolution is a policy matter for 
the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



73 



Memo to Finance Committee 

November 18, 1992 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 5- File 195-92-11 

Item 

This item is a request to consider a long-range plan to alleviate jail 
overcrowding. 

Consent Decree 

The City and County of San Francisco signed a Consent Decree in May, 1982 
providing that, except for weekends and holidays, housing areas of the County 
Jail would not house more than their rated capacities (Stone versus the City and 
County of San Francisco . May, 1982). In October, 1988, the Federal Court which 
monitors the Consent Decree ordered that the City be fined $300 per violation of the 
Consent Decree at County Jail #1, located in the Hall of Justice at 850 Bryant 
Street. A violation consists of each inmate each day above the rated capacity. The 
rated inmate capacity for County Jail #1 is 426. 

According to the Sheriffs Department, in the past, the jail population of 
County Jail #1 has typically exceeded 426 three to four months each year. 
However, since FY 1991-1992, the jail populations have been higher than in other 
years. For the six month period of August 1, 1991 to February 1, 1992, the 
population of County Jail #1 exceeded its legal capacity 6,696 times, or an average 
of approximately 24 inmates over the legal capacity per day for 279 days. 

For each violation of the Consent Decree, the City may be fined $300. Any 
fines collected would be dedicated to alleviate jail overcrowding in San Francisco. 
Currently, $2.79 million for fines from January 2, 1992 to August 30, 1992, is in 
escrow, pending a decision by the Court as to whether fines should be collected 
when stays of execution are in place. In addition, fines for September, 1992 of 
$161,400, and for October, 1992 of $280,000 are in escrow. These fines are not in 
dispute. 

Background 

San Francisco jails currently house two major groups of inmates: pre-trial 
felons; convicted, pre-sentenced felons; and sentenced misdemeanants. Because 
of jail overcrowding, the Sheriffs Department no longer holds inmates for other 
agencies, such as the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the Drug 
Enforcement Administration, or other counties, except for Federal prisoners from 
the U.S. Marshall. In general, all pre-trial misdemeanants are released on bail, 
on their Own Recognizance, through the Sheriffs Supervised Citation Project, or 
through the Pretrial Diversion Project, except for domestic violence cases. (The 
Pretrial Diversion Project consists of an opportunity for a first-time accused 
misdemeanant to complete an individual program, such as community service or 
classes; if the program is completed, charges are dropped.) Sentenced felons 
carry out their sentences at State or Federal prisons, unless they are sentenced to 
one year or less in jail. The Sheriffs Department is reimbursed for costs 
associated with Federal prisoners. 



7/. 



Memo to Finance Committee 

November 18, 1992 Finance Committee Meeting 

According to Mr. Dennis Aftergut of the City Attorney's Office, the Federal 
Court previously authorized the City to ameliorate jail overcrowding in two ways: 
(1) to release sentenced inmates at 70 percent of their sentences; and (2) with 
respect to pretrial detainees, under the Court's order, the Sheriff can cite out 
certain persons accused of misdemeanors who could otherwise not be cited out 
under State law. According to Mr. Aftergut, the Court-appointed monitor 
estimates that these provisions reduce the population in all four County jails by a 
total of 500 per day as of 1989. (The Court-appointed monitor has not made a more 
recent estimate.) 

Pre-Trial Felons 

The portion of the San Francisco jail population which is pre-trial felons (77 
percent) is higher than most California Counties. For example, according to the 
Santa Clara Department of Corrections, 50 percent of the Santa Clara County's 
jail population are pre-trial felons. Mr. Newton Lamb of the Mayor's Criminal 
Justice Council advises that most California counties' jail populations are 
approximately 50 percent pre-trial felons. Mr. Lamb reports that one reason San 
Francisco's pre-trial felon population is disproportionately high is that the 
Federal Court's jail population management programs, described in the 
preceding paragraph, are directed at the sentenced population. According to 
Deputy Babe Franey of the Sheriffs Department, the second reason for this 
disproportionately high pre-felon population is that 60 percent of sentenced 
prisoners complete their sentences in alternatives to incarceration, such as 
County Parole or Work Furlough. 

Pre-trial felons may be released pending trial either through bail programs 
(only those accused of a capital offense, when the proof of guilt is evident or the 
presumption of guilt is great, are automatically ineligible for bail), or through the 
Own Recognizance Program, where pre-trial felons are interviewed and later 
evaluated for possible release on their own recognizance by the Court. According 
to Chief Arlene Sauser of the Adult Probation Department, Adult Probation has 
proposed a program for pre-trial felons, whereby such pre-trial felons could be 
released on probation with supervision 24 hours a day. Chief Sauser advises that 
with two Probation Officers and an electronic monitoring contract, the jail 
population could be reduced by 40 to 50 beds per day. Release of prisoners on their 
own recognizance is at the discretion of the Court, and use of a pre-trial felon 
probation program would be similarly discretionary. 

Sentenced Misdemeanants 

Sentenced misdemeanants or felons on probation may carry out their 
sentences either in jail or through alternatives to incarceration programs. These 
alternative programs include the Work Furlough Program, the Electronic 
Monitoring Device Program, Substance Abuse Rehabilitation Programs, and the 
County Parole Program. Such alternatives to incarceration programs are used at 
the discretion of the Court, with the approval of the Sheriff. Chief Sauser advises 
that currently, approximately 5,000 misdemeanants are on probation. Sgt. 



Memo to Finance Committee 

November 18, 1992 Finance Committee Meeting 

Richard Dyer of the Sheriffs Department advises that a new Work Furlough 
facility, including 320 beds, is currently under construction at the Hall of Justice. 
This facility is anticipated to be completed in early 1994, Sgt. Dyer reports. 

Pre-sentenced Felons 

When an accused felon is convicted, the case is automatically continued 28 
legal days for sentencing. During this period, the Adult Probation Department 
investigates the individual and makes recommendations for sentencing. In fiscal 
year 1991-1992, the Board of Supervisors approved and the Adult Probation 
Department implemented a program whereby the investigation period was 
accelerated from 28 days to 21 days. Two additional Probation Officers were hired. 
Thus, the average county jail stay between plea and sentencing for convicted 
felons was reduced from 28 days to 21 days. 

As noted above, alternatives to incarceration programs are at the discretion 
of the Court, with the approval of the Sheriff. According to Sgt. Dyer, issues of 
public safety must be considered when releasing pre-trial felons, since social 
service agencies may define adequate supervision differently than the justice 
system. However, according to Mr. Irv Reichert of the Own Recognizance 
Program, the 19 Duty Judges vary significantly in their use of the Own 
Recognizance Program (OR). According to Mr. Reichert, the Duty Judges vary 
from 3 percent to 70 percent in their use of the OR Program. The only way the City 
can be absolutely assured that funding to relieve jail overcrowding will actually 
relieve jail overcrowding is by funding jail beds. However, as of the writing of this 
report, the Budget Analyst has not been provided with any hard documentation 
that alternative programs are underutilized. Sgt. Dyer advises that the Work 
Furlough Program, which includes 66 beds, is consistently used at capacity. 

Renting jail beds is generally more costly than alternative programs. A 
rented jail bed in Alameda County costs $63.10 per bed per day. By comparison, a 
bed in a Residential Rehabilitation Program can range from $45 to $85 per bed per 
day, depending on the facility, and the inmate receives drug rehabilitation 
services in addition to food and shelter. Work Furlough beds cost $39.25 per bed 
per day; Electronic Monitoring costs $30.25 per person per day, according to Sgt. 
Dyer. Many alternatives to incarceration programs provide more services than 
jails. 

Appropriations and Supplemental Appropriations 

To alleviate jail overcrowding, in August, 1991 the Board of Supervisors 
approved a Supplemental Appropriation totalling $500,000. That supplemental 
appropriation funded: (1) 862 work furlough beds to a private San Francisco 
agency; (2) expanding the County Parole Program to supervise 25 additional 
parolees; and (3) placing additional employees at County Jail #7 (San Bruno) to 
increase its capacity by 60. These programs have received funding in the FY 1992- 
93 budget. 



Memo to Finance Committee 

November 18, 1992 Finance Committee Meeting 

To further alleviate overcrowding, in March, 1992, the Board of Supervisors 
approved a supplemental appropriation of approximately $1.8 million for the 
Sheriffs Department to rent jail beds in Alameda County, at a cost of $63. 10 per 
bed per diem. $4,606,300 was included in the FY 1992-93 budget for such jail bed 
rentals, which would support 200 beds per day for 365 days. According to Deputy 
Franey, in fact, an average of 230 beds were rented per day through October 22, 
1992, and an average of 240 beds have been rented per day since October 23, 1992. 
The Sheriffs Department has submitted a supplemental appropriation request to 
support these additional beds. (See below.) 

In addition, funds for 10 beds at Walden House Residential Drug Treatment 
Program and 10 beds at Milestones residential drug treatment program were 
included in the FY 1992-93 budget. However, the Sheriff has used an additional 10 
beds per day at Walden House, for a total of 20 beds, and an additional 15 beds per 
day at Milestones, for a total of 25 beds. The Sheriffs Department has submitted a 
supplemental appropriation request to support these additional beds. (See below.) 

As noted in the paragraph entitled "Pre- sentenced Felons," above, in fiscal 
year 1991-1992 the Board of Supervisors approved a supplemental appropriation to 
hire two additional Probation Officers to reduce the investigation period for pre- 
sentenced, jailed felons from 21 days to 28 days. This program continues to be 
funded in the FY 1992-93 budget. 

On November 2, 1992, the Sheriff submitted a supplemental appropriation 
request to the Mayor's Office for a total of approximately $4.5 million. This $4.5 
million would fund the additional beds at Alameda County and at Walden House 
and Milestones, as well as the following: 

Additional Rented Jail Beds in Alameda County 

30 rented jail beds per day 

($63. 10 per bed per day; 365 days) $690,945 

10 additional rented jail beds per day 

($63. 10 per bed per day, 251 days) 158,381 

Unpaid balance for rented jail beds, FY 1991-92 72,565 

Extra floor at Alameda County, including 121 beds 
plus San Francisco County personnel 
(approximately $78 per day, 251 days) 2.369.609 

Total rented jail beds in Alameda County $3,291,500 

Residential Drug Treatment Beds 

12 beds at Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 

($52 per day; 181 days) 112,944 



Memo to Finance Committee 

November 18, 1992 Finance Committee Meeting 

50 beds at Eclectic Communications, Inc. 

($50 per day, 181 days) 452,500 

20 additional beds at Walden House 

($60 per day, 273 days) $327,600 

25 additional beds at Milestones 

($45 per day, 273 days) 307.125 

Total Residential Drug Treatment Beds 1,200,169 

Municipal Court Study 

(to identify and evaluate risk assessment methods 
for release of pre-trial felons) 60.000 

Total Supplemental Appropriation Request $4,551,669 

The Sheriff also submitted a supplemental appropriation request to the 
Mayor's Office in September, 1992, for $800,000 for overtime. According to Deputy 
Franey, the Sheriffs Department has nearly depleted its budgeted overtime, 
because extra hours are required to transport prisoners to Alameda County and to 
manage the high numbers of inmates. 

Neither supplemental appropriation request has been forwarded to the 
Board of Supervisors by the Mayor's Office. 

Bond Measures 

In November, 1992, the San Francisco electorate disapproved a proposition 
(Proposition B) authorizing a bond issue of $158.1 million for the purpose of 
constructing replacement housing and associated health and safety 
improvements at the San Bruno jail (County Jail Numbers 3 and 7). 

In November, 1990, the San Francisco electorate authorized $16.5 million of 
Correctional Facilities Improvement Bonds (Proposition A), as the local match to 
$39.5 million in State grants for the construction of a new jail medical facility, a 
larger work furlough facility, and for making health, safety and other 
improvements to the jails. These funds were expended to construct a new building 
in the Hall of Justice parking lot containing a new booking/release area, a 
centralized medical and psychiatric treatment and housing area for prisoners in 
the jail system, a work furlough program, and space for associated operational 
and administrative functions. 

Past Reports 

On June 20, 1991, the Criminal Justice Administrative Group (CJAG) 
submitted a long term overcrowding plan to the Federal Court, entitled San 
Francisco Jail Population Management Plan . This plan, which is apparently the 
only long term overcrowding plan that has been submitted to the Federal Court, 



Memo to Finance Committee 

November 18, 1992 Finance Committee Meeting 

was described to the Board of Supervisors in June, 1991 (File 195-91-2). The CJAG 
consists of representatives from the various City justice system departments, the 
Mayor's Office and the Department of Public Health. The CJAG plan included 
several proposals, which are in various stages of implementation. These include 
continued meetings and recommendations by CJAG, increased use of 
alternatives to incarceration programs, such as Own Recognizance, Pretrial 
Diversion, and use of County Parole, 

In October, 1991, the 1990-91 Civil Grand Jury transmitted its Final Report, 
which included recommendations on the jails. The Grand Jury's 
recommendations included a continued commitment to the CJAG's overcrowding 
plan; that future Civil Grand Juries should monitor the progress of the Plan; and 
that a mechanism be created to alert the Sheriff and the CJAG if the Plan's 
projected bed savings assumptions are not being met. 



V 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 18, 1992 



Item 6 - File 101-92-8 



Department: 

Item: 



Amount: 
Source of Funds: 

Description: 



Mayor's Office of Community Development (MOCD) 

Supplemental Appropriation Ordinance to fund the Dispute 
Resolution Program for permanent salaries and professional 
special services contracts for the period from October 1, 1992, 
through September 30, 1993. 

$220,624 

Special Revenue Funds - Dispute Resolution Program ($3.00 
surcharge on various Municipal and Superior Court filing 
fees). 

In December of 1986, the City and County of San Francisco 
established a funding source for a Dispute Resolution 
Program in accordance with the State Dispute Resolution 
Programs Act of 1986 by adding a $3.00 surcharge to various 
Municipal and Superior Court filing fees. By October 1988, 
sufficient funds from the surcharges had accumulated to 
fund a local Dispute Resolution Program as approved by the 
Board of Supervisors (Files 101-88-15 and 338-88-1). The 
Dispute Resolution Program provides an alternative to 
formal court proceedings for the settlement of disputes by 
assembling panels of specialists to hear the disputants' 
arguments and then to render a non-binding decision 
regarding the dispute. 

The proposed supplemental appropriation would fund a 
continuation of the Dispute Resolution Program from October 
1, 1992 through September 30, 1993, as follows: 

Special Services Contract 
Community Boards 

(1,156 cases* @ $89/case) $102,875 

California Community Dispute 

Services (904 cases* @ $97/case) 87,723 

California Lawyers for the Arts 

(100 cases* @ $100/case) 10.000 

Total Contract Services $200,598 

* The number of cases to be provided was determined by 
dividing the available funding by the per case cost. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



an 



j f Memo to Finance Committee 
' November 18, 1992 

MQCD Administration 

Senior Accountant (0.1 FTE) $4,453 

Senior Community Development 

Specialist (0.15 FTE) 6,812 

Supervising Community Development 

Specialist (0.05 FTE) 3.531 

Subtotal Salaries $14,796 

Fringe Benefits (at 20.375%) 3,015 

Other Overhead Costs 
(Share of clerical support, supplies, 
telephone, rent, etc.) 2.215 

Total - MOCD Administration $20.026 

Program Total $220,624 

Comments: 1. In Fiscal Year 1991-92, $214,324 was appropriated for the 

Dispute Resolution Program. 

2. The proposed Supplemental Appropriation Ordinance 
would extend the work programs for the existing contractors 
for an additional year, from October 1, 1992 through 
September 30, 1993. FY 1992-93 would be the fourth one-year 
extension of the three contractors. Because funding for the 
Dispute Resolution Program began on October 1, 1992, the 
proposed ordinance should be amended to authorize the 
MOCD to fund the Dispute Resolution Program retroactively. 

3. A comparison of contractor cost per case between 1991-92 
and 1992-93 for the three contracting agencies is as follows: 



Cost Per Case 

Increase/ 
1991-92 1992-93 Decrease 


$92 


$89 




($3) 


100 
100 


97 
100 




(3) 




Contractor 

Community Boards 
California Community 

Dispute Services 
California Lawyers for the Arts 

According to Mr. Bernhard Gunther of the MOCD, 
Community Boards and California Community Dispute 
Services would be receiving $3.00 less per hour in 1992-93 
than in 1991-92 because funding available for their services 
was reduced in 1992-93. Because Community Boards and 
California Community Dispute Services receive the majority 
of the funding, they were asked to reduce their budgets, 
Community Boards and California Community Dispute 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 18, 1992 

Services decided to reduce their hourly rates rather than 
reduce their caseloads. 

Recommendation: Amend the proposed ordinance to authorize the MOCD to 
fund the Dispute Resolution Program retroactively as 
described in Comment 1. Approve the proposed ordinance as 
amended. 



BOARD OF SUPERVLSORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 18, 1992 



Item 7 - File 118-92-8 

Department: 

Item: 



S££ AJUW> 



'■ V. sfcis 



■fkis / 



Department of Public Health (DPH) 



The proposed ordinance would amend the Health Code by 
adding Article 25, Sections 1401 through 1413 to provide for a 
program for enforcement of the California Medical Waste 
Management Act and for registration, permitting, 
inspections and administrative fees for medical waste 
generators, treatment, and storage faculties. 

Description: The proposed Medical Waste Generator Registration, 

Permitting, Inspection and Fee Ordinance (Medical Waste 
Ordinance) would regulate the storage, treatment, 
transportation, and disposal of medical waste within the 
City. The proposed ordinance would enable the City's DPH to 
regulate private and public medical waste generator agencies 
located in the City and County of San Francisco. 

The proposed ordinance contains a two page technical 
definition of "medical waste." Generally, "medical waste" is 
the discarded superfluous material from medical or 
veterinary agencies that may contain infectious disease 
organisms and, therefore, is a health threat to humans and 
animals. Used hypodermic needles, blood vials, bandages, 
and medical instruments are examples of medical waste. 

The ordinance would regulate the management of medical 
waste generated by various medical facilities including: 
hospitals, clinics, surgery centers, doctor's offices, veterinary 
offices, health care facilities, medical laboratories, and 
dental offices. Agencies having facilities that produce 
medical waste would be required to send to the DPH an 
informational document which includes general business 
information and information on the types and volumes of 
medical waste produced, medical waste handling, storage, 
treatment and disposal methods. The ordinance would 
require that medical waste could only be transported by State 
licensed hazardous waste haulers or certain medical waste 
generator agencies with limited hauling exemptions issued 
by the DPH. 

Agencies having facilities that treat medical waste generated 
on site would also be required to comply with specified 
provisions in the ordinance. Medical waste treatment is any 
method designed to destroy the biological hazard of medical 
waste so as to eliminate its potential for causing disease. The 
ordinance additionally would regulate the storage and 
transfer of medical waste by requiring permits for the 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

83 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 18, 1992 



consolidation and use of common storage areas by a group of 
generators. 

The proposed ordinance contains specific regulations for 
large and small quantity generator agencies and fees that 
would be paid to the City (estimated revenues are detailed in 
Comment number 4 below) as follows: 

Large quantity generators agencies would be those agencies 
having facilities that generate more than 200 pounds of 
medical waste each month. (The proposed ordinance defines 
the constituents of "medical waste.") The proposed ordinance 
requires that large quantity generator agencies register with 
the DPH annually. In addition, the generator agency would 
be required to submit a Medical Waste Management Plan 
that includes general business information as well as 
information on the types and volumes of medical waste 
generated, medical waste handling, storage, treatment and 
disposal methods. 

This group of generator agencies would be subject to 
inspection on an annual basis by the City to ensure 
compliance with State and City requirements. Mr. Scott 
Nakamura, the Hazardous Waste Project Manager for the 
DPH Bureau of Toxics, Health and Safety Services, estimates 
that there are 177 agencies in San Francisco that would fit 
the large quantity medical waste generator definition of the 
proposed ordinance. This large quantity medical waste 
generator group includes 83 agencies that currently have 
State medical waste licensed facilities and 94 unlicensed 
laboratories, veterinary offices, and medical offices. The 
proposed ordinance would require the payment of annual 
registration fees to the City by large quantity generators 
agencies. These annual registration fees would range from 
$255 to $1,445 according to the size and type of facility . 

The proposed ordinance would require that Onsite Medical 
Waste Treatment Facility Permits be obtained from the DPH 
by large quantity generator agencies that want to treat and 
dispose of their own medical wastes. Large quantity medical 
waste generator agencies that want to treat their own 
medical wastes would be required to use approved methods 
which include the use of an autoclave, microwave, or 
incinerator. In addition, a health care facility accepting 
medical waste for treatment from small quantity generators 
located within 400 yards could do so as an onsite treatment 
facility. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

84 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 18, 1992 



Large quantity medical waste generator agencies wanting to 
obtain an onsite treatment permit would be required to 
submit an application containing business information, 
treatment method, facility treatment capacity, waste 
characterization, and estimated average monthly quantity of 
waste to be treated at the facility. Mr. Nakamura estimates 
that there are 21 agencies in the City that currently treat 
medical waste onsite. The annual permit fee for an onsite 
autoclave permit would be $255 and the annual permit fee for 
all other State Approved treatment methods would be $340. In 
addition, the Director of DPH would charge large quantity 
medical waste generator agencies wanting to obtain an onsite 
treatment permit a permit application fee equal to $85 for 
each hour that DPH staff spends processing the permit 
application. 

Small Quantity Generators would be those agencies having 
facilities that generate less than 200 pounds of medical waste 
each month. The proposed ordinance would regulate two 
subgroups of small quantity generator agencies. The two 
groups would include small quantity generator agencies that 
treat medical waste onsite and small quantity generators that 
do not treat medical waste onsite. 

Small quantity generators that treat medical waste onsite 
would be required to register, file a medical waste 
management plan, and submit applicable fees to the DPH on 
a biennial basis. The approved treatment methods for onsite 
medical waste treatment would include the use of steam 
sterilization, incineration, and microwave methods. The 
management plan would be required to describe the method 
to be used to treat, transport, and dispose of the medical 
waste. In addition, this group of generator agencies would be 
subject to inspection by the City on a biennial basis to ensure 
compliance with State and City requirements. Small quantity 
generators that treat medical waste onsite would be required 
to pay a registration fee of $255 every two years. Mr. 
Nakamura estimates that there are 15 agencies in the City 
that currently are small quantity generator agencies that 
treat medical waste onsite. 

Small quantity generators that do not treat medical waste 
onsite are required by the ordinance to submit to the DPH an 
informational document that describes how the medical 
waste is handled, stored, transported, and disposed. In 
addition, the ordinance requires that small quantity 
generator agencies pay a one time non-registrant fee of $75. 
Mr. Nakamura estimates that there are 1,600 small quantity 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

85 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 18, 1992 



generator agencies that would be required to submit the 
informational document and one time fee. 

Limited Quantity Hauling Exemptions would be required to 
be obtained from the DPH which would enable small quantity 
generator agencies to transport up to 20 pounds of medical 
waste per week. The medical waste would be required to be 
transported to a licensed medical waste treatment facility or 
transfer station before consolidation or treatment and 
disposal. Small quantity generator agencies applying for a 
Limited Quantity Hauling Exemption would be required to 
pay an annual fee of $85. Mr. Nakamura estimates that there 
are 50 small quantity generator agencies that would request 
Limited Quantity Hauling Exemptions. Agencies that haul 20 
pounds of medical waste per week or more would continue to 
be licensed and regulated by the State. 

Common Storage Facility permits would be obtained from the 
DPH for small quantity generator agencies that want to store 
medical waste until it is picked up by a licensed hauler. The 
permit could be issued to the group of small quantity 
generator agencies, the property owner or management 
firm, or medical waste hauler. The fee for a Common Storage 
Facility permit would range from $213 to $425 depending on 
the number of generator agencies served by the storage 
facility. Mr. Nakamura estimates that there are 21 groups of 
small quantity generators agencies that would use common 
storage facilities. 

The proposed ordinance would authorize the Director of the 
DPH to enforce the provisions of the California Medical Waste 
Management Act of 1990. Violations of the Act and ordinance 
would be subject to Cease and Desist Orders and 
Administrative penalties of up to $1,000 per violation. 
Violations of an Order would constitute a misdemeanor and 
could be subject to civil action. Violations of storage, 
treatment, and disposal standards would vary from small 
quantity and large quantity generators. Generators violating 
these standards are subject to penalties ranging from $1,000 
for the first offense to no more than $25,000 and/or three years 
imprisonment for multiple offenses. The Director of the DPH 
would also be authorized to take emergency actions when 
necessary to protect the public health or welfare. The Director 
of the DPH could also assess liens for costs and charges 
incurred by the City for the abatement of any imminent 
danger. 

The proposed ordinance authorizes the City's Director of the 
DPH to enforce the provisions of the California Medical Waste 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

86 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 18, 1992 

Management Act of 1990. Violations of the Act and ordinance 
would be subject to Cease and Desist Orders and 
Administrative penalties of up to $1,000 per violation. 
Violations of an Order would constitute a misdemeanor and 
would be subject to a civil action. 

Violations of storage, treatment, and disposal standards 
would vary for small quantity and large quantity medical 
waste generator agencies. Medical waste generator agencies 
violating these standards would be subject to penalties 
ranging from $1,000 for the first offense to no more than 
$25,000 and/or three years imprisonment for multiple 
offenses. The Director of the DPH would also be authorized to 
take emergency actions when necessary to protect the public 
health or welfare. The Director of the DPH could also assess 
liens for costs and charges incurred by the City for the 
abatement of any imminent hazardous waste danger. 

Comments: 1. The State currently regulates the storage, treatment, 

transportation, and disposal of medical waste within the City 
and regulates private and public medical waste generator 
agencies located in the City and County of San Francisco. The 
DPH intends that the proposed ordinance would give the DPH 
control over medical waste in the City to better assure that the 
biological character of medical waste can either be isolated or 
eliminated so as to prevent medical waste from causing 
disease in humans or animals. The DPH believes that it can 
do a better job to assure the safety of medical waste in the City 
than can the State. 

2. The California Medical Waste Management Act of 1990 
authorizes local agencies, such as the City, to establish a 
medical waste regulatory program through the adoption of a 
local medical waste management ordinance. According to 
Mr. Scott Nakamura, the Hazardous Waste Project Manager 
for the DPH Bureau of Toxics, Health and Safety Services, the 
State Department of Health Services currently administers 
the regulations contained in this act and, thereby, currently 
is responsible for regulating private and public facilities 
located in the City that create, produce, or generate medical 
wastes. Mr. Nakamura states that the State Department of 
Health Services is not adequately staffed to respond to the 
City's local concerns. 

3. According to Mr. Nakamura, "the benefits of local 
implementation of the Medical Waste Management Program 
include local control over the identification and correction of 
problems related to the improper management of medical 
waste, faster response to incidents of improperly managed 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

87 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 18, 1992 



medical waste, the ability to address occupational safety and 
health issues at medical facilities, increased communication 
with medical waste generators, and coordination of local 
policies which would minimize public health concerns. The 
implementation of such a local program would also ensure 
that registration and permit fees, which would otherwise be 
submitted to the State, would stay in San Francisco." 

4. The following table lists the one-time and annual fees that 
would be charged for each type of agency and activity: 







Number 


Frequency 




One Total 




Number 


of 


of 




Annual Time First Year 


Tvpe of Aaencv 


of Beds Aaencies 


Pavment 


E&S I 


Revenue Revenue Revenue 


Larae Quantity Generator 












Hospital 


1fo99 


3 


Annual 


$ 510 


$ 1,530 


Hospital 


100 to 

199 

200 to 

250 

251 plus 


1 


Annual 


765 


765 


Hospital 


1 


Annual 


1,020 


1,020 


Hospital 


12 


Annual 


1,445 


17,340 


Skilled Nursing Facility 


1to99 


14 


Annual 


255 


3,570 


Skilled Nursing Facility 


100 to 

199 

200 plus 


4 


Annual 


340 


1,360 


Skilled Nursing Facility 


1 


Annual 


425 


425 


Specialty Clinic 




31 


Annual 


595 


18,445 


Acute Psychiatric Hospital 




2 


Annual 


595 


1,190 


Intermediate Care Facility 




1 


Annual 


595 


595 


Primary Care Clinic 




12 


Annual 


595 


7,140 


Health Care Service Plan 




5 


Annual 


595 


2,975 


Licensed Clinical Laboratory 




38 


Annual 


255 


9,690 


Veterinary Offices 




6 


Annual 


255 


1,530 


Medical Office* 




46 


Annual 


255 


11,730* 


Small Quanfrtv Generator 












On-Site Treatment 




15 


Biennial 


255 


1,913 


Off-Site Treatment 




1,600 


One-time 


75 


$120,000 


Haulers Limited Quantity Hauling 




50 


Annual 


85 


4,250 


Exemption 












Transfer Fee* 




1 






595* 


Common Storaae Facility Permits 












10 or less Agencies Served 




6 


Annual 


213 


1278 


1 1 to 49 Agencies Served 




10 


Annual 


340 


3,400 


50 or more Agencies Served 




5 


Annual 


425 


2,125 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

88 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 18, 1992 







Number 


Frequency 






One 


Total 




Number 


of 


of 




Annual 


Time 


First Year 


Type of Aqency 


of Beds Agencies 


Payment 


Fee 


Revenue Revenue 


Revenue 


On-Site Medical Waste Treatment 
















Facility 
















Autoclave Treatment 




20 


Annual 


255 


5,100 






Other Treatment 




1 


Annual 


340 


340 






Processing Fee (estimate 30 








$35/Hr. 


1,050 






hours) 
















Totals 










$99,356 ! 


5120,000 


$219,356 



* The proposed ordinance does not currently contain full provision for these fees. 
The DPH is working with the City Attorney's Office to amend the proposed 
ordinance to include mortuaries under the definition of medical offices and to 
make provision for a transfer fee of $595 annually. The transfer fee would be 
charged to haulers operating a transfer station at which medical wastes are 
consolidated and transferred to another hauler's vehicle. 

5. The California Medical Waste Management Act allows 
counties to charge fees necessary to implement a medical 
waste management program. A comparison of the proposed 
fees for the City and County of San Francisco, the State of 
California, and five other counties that have already 
implemented medical waste management programs is 
contained in the attached schedule. 



Personnel Costs 



6. Mr. Nakamura projects the annual costs for the 
implementation of the proposed Medical Waste Program to be 
$213,458. These implementation costs include personnel costs 
of $135,432 and non-personnel costs of $78,026 as follows: 



Classification 

6122 Senior Environmental Health Inspector 
1446 Secretary II 
Salary subtotal 

Mandatory Fringe Benefits (@ 28%) 

Total Personnel Costs 

Operating Costs 

Auto Mileage 

Travel 

Training 



FTE 
1.0 
1Q 
2.0 



Annual 
Salaries 
$ 66,240 
39.566 
$105,806 

29.626 



$ 1,000 

500 

2,000 



$135,432 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

89 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 18, 1992 



Contractual Services (Emergency 


Response) 


22,000 




Other Current Services 




2,000 




Vehicle 




5,000 




Postage (3 mailings by registered mail) 


17,500 




Telephone 




1,500 




Materials and Supplies 




6,000 




Rental of Property 




5,336 




Data Processing Equipment 




7,500 




Reproduction 




6,690 




Medical Surveillance 




1,000 




Total Operating Costs 






78.026 


Total Cost 






$213,458 



7. The Senior Environmental Health Inspector position would 
determine the inventory of businesses subject to the 
ordinance, develop letters of notification, application packets, 
fact sheets, standard operating procedures, inspection forms, 
enforcement procedures, fee collection procedures, review 
medical waste management plans and informational 
documents, and conduct inspections of facilities subject to the 
ordinance. In addition, this position would conduct business 
workshops for the regulated community to assist them in 
complying with the requirements of the ordinance. The 
Senior Clerk Typist would provide clerical support for the 
program. 

8. The above annual costs for the implementation of the 
proposed Medical Waste Program include the staffing and 
operating costs associated with the processing of 
applications, development of application forms, notifications 
of permit requirements, review of applications and required 
documentation, inspection of medical waste generators, 
issuance of permits, development and distribution of fact 
sheets, newsletters, and other educational materials. 

9. The costs to implement the program would be entirely 
funded by the projected revenue of $219,356 from registration 
and permit fees. The proposed ordinance provides for an 
inspection fee of $85 per hour or each portion thereof for 
inspections and associated activities. Prior to the issuance of 
permits, medical waste generator agencies may be inspected 
by DPH staff to ensure compliance with State and City 
requirements. 

10. According to Mr. Nakamura, after the initial year of 
operation of the proposed Medical Waste Program, various 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

90 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 18, 1992 

initial costs of the Program could be eliminated or reduced. 
For example, vehicle, postage and data processing expenses 
could be reduced significantly. Mr. Nakamura estimates that 
the annual ongoing cost of the proposed Medical Waste 
Program would be approximately $30,000 less than the cost of 
the initial year of operation or $183,458. 

11. As stated above, the estimated revenues of $219,356 from 
the fees contained in the proposed ordinance would support 
the $213,458 estimated cost of the first year's operation of the 
proposed Medical Waste Program. However, the estimated 
revenues of $99,356 from the fees earned in the subsequent 
years of the Program would not support the $183,458 
estimated cost of the annual ongoing operation of the 
proposed Medical Waste Program. 

12. In order to hire the staff and expend funds to implement 
the proposed Medical Waste Program, DPH must submit a 
supplemental appropriation including the Controller's 
certification of funds available from the proposed new fees to 
appropriate the funds and an ordinance to amend the 
Annual Salary Ordinance to create the new positions. In 
addition, the collection of the proposed fees by the City would 
require the hiring of staff to perform the requisite 
inspections. The supplemental appropriation and the 
ordinance to amend the Annual Salary Ordinance should be 
companion legislation to this file since none could be 
appropriately implemented without the others. Mr. 
Nakamura has indicated to the Budget Analyst that he does 
have a plan to fund the ongoing cost of the proposed Program 
but has not finalized his plan. 

Recommendation: Continue the consideration of this item pending 1) the 
submission of a companion supplemental appropriation and 
an ordinance to amend the Annual Salary Ordinance, 2) the 
Department's clarification of second and subsequent years' 
funding, and 3) the revision of the proposed ordinance 
reflecting the specific intentions of the Department including 
fees for mortuaries and medical waste hauler transfer fees. 

The adoption of the proposed ordinance that would create an 
additional new program responsibility for the City including 
new fees and the need for additional staff and operational 
costs is a policy mater for the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

91 



MEDICAL WASTE FEE COMPARISON 






Attachm 


snt 




















SAN 
FRANCISCO 


SANTA 
CLARA 


ORANGE 


ALAMEDA 


MARIN 


CONTRA 
COSTA 


STATE OF 
CALIFORNIA 


LARGE QUANTITY GENERATORS 
















ACUTE CARE HOSPITALS 
















1-99 BEDS 


$510.00 


$600.00 


$722.00 


$503.00 


$600.00 


$600.00 


$600.00 


100-199 BEDS 


$765.00 


$860.00 


$938.00 


$704.00 


$860.00 


$860.00 


$860.00 


200-250 BEDS 


$1,020.00 


$1,100.00 


$1,239.00 


$1,106.00 


$1,000.00 


$1,000.00 


$1,000.00 


251 OR MORE BEDS 


$1,445.00 


$1,400.00 


$1,557.00 


$1,106.00 


$1,400.00 


$1,400.00 


$1,400.00 


















SPECIALTY CUNIC (SURGICAL, 
DIALYSIS. ETC) 


$595.00 


$350.00 


$368.00 


$503.00 


$350.00 


$350.00 


$350.00 


















ACUTE PSYCHIATRIC HOSPPTAL 


$595.00 


$200.00 


$206.00 


$503.00 


$600.00 


$200.00 


$200.00 


















INTERMEDIATE CARE FACILITY 


$595.00 


$300.00 


$336.00 


$503.00 


$300.00 


$300.00 


$300.00 


















PRIMARY CARE CUNIC 


$595.00 


$350.00 


$368.00 


$503.00 


$350.00 


$350.00 


$350.00 


















CLINICAL LABORATORY 


$255.00 


$200.00 


$213.00 


$503.00 


$200.00 


$200.00 


$200.00 


















HEALTH CARE SERVICE PLAN 
FACILITY 


$595.00 


$350.00 


$368.00 


$503.00 


NA 


$350.00 


$350.00 


















VETERINARY CUNIC OR HOSPITAL 


$255.00 


$200.00 


$368.00 


$503.00 


$200.00 


$200.00 


$200.00 


















MEDICAL/DENTAL OFFICE (200 OR 
MORE POUNDS/MONTH) 


$255.00 


$200.00 


$213.00 


$503.00 


$200.00 


$200.00 


$200.00 


















HOME HEALTH SERVICE (NURSING, 
INFUSION SERVICES, ETC) 


$255.00 


$200.00 


$213.00 


$503.00 


NA 


$200.00 


$200.00 


















FOLLOW UP INSPECTIONS. 
INVESTIGATIONS, AND 
CONSULTATIONS (HOURLY RATE) 


$85.00 


$0.00 


NA 


$67.00 


$75.00 


$80.00 


NA 


















AUTOCLAVE TREATMENT PERMIT 


$255.00 


$300.00 


$496.00 


NA 


$200.00 


NA 


NA 


INCINERATOR TREATMENT PERMIT 


$340.00 


$300.00 


$496.00 


NA 


$200.00 


NA 


NA 


















PERMIT APPUCATION REVIEW FEE 
(HOURLY RATE) 


$85.00 


$0.00 


NA 


$67.00 


$75.00 


$80.00 


NA 


















SMALL QUANTITY GENERATORS 
(LESS THAN 200 POUNDS/MONTH, 
TRFAT ONSITE) 


$128.00 


$100.00 


$496.00 


$134.00 


$100.00 


$100.00 


$50.00 


















NONREGISTRANT FEE (ONE TIME) 


S75.00 


$25.00 


NA 


$0.00 


$75.00 


$25.00 


$0.00 


















LIMITED QUANTITY HAULING 
EXEMPTION 


S85.00 


$0.00 


NA 


$101.00 


$75.00 


$50.00 


$0.00 


















COMMON STORAGE FACILITY 
PERMIT FEE 
















SERVING 2-10 GENERATORS 


S213.00 


$100.00 


$105.00 


$201.00 | S 150.00 


$100.00 


$100.00 


SERVING 11^*9 GENERATORS 


S340.00 


$250.00 


$263.00 


$201.00 


S250.00 


$250.00 


$250.00 


SERVING 50 OR MORE GENERATORS 


S425.00 


S500.00 


$561.00 


$201.00 


S500.00 


$500.00 


$500.00 


















INPATIENT FACILITIES 
















1-99 BEDS 


S255.00 


S275.00 


$306.00 


$503.00 


$600 00 


$275.00 


$275.00 


100-199 BEDS 


S340 00 


$350.00 


$377.00 ! $704.00 


S860 00 


$350 00 


$350.00 


200 OR MORE BEDS 


$425.00 


$400 00 


$446.00 


$1,106.00 


S 1.000.00 


$400.00 


$400.00 


















TRANSFER STATION 


S595 00 


SS00 00 


$561 00 


$603.00 J NA 


$500 00 


$500.00 



92 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 18, 1992 



Item 8 -260-92-1 
Item: 



Description: 



Resolution urging the transfer of two City remittance 
banking accounts from the Bank of America, urging the 
transfer of City revolving banking accounts from the Bank 
of America, urging that Bank of America not be used for the 
City's proposed direct payroll deposit program, and urging 
all officers and employees of the City and County, when 
given the opportunity to utilize the services of a financial 
institution for the City, to consider the use of financial 
institutions other than the Bank of America. 

The Bank of America has recently reinstated its corporate 
donations to the Boy Scouts of America. In the past, the 
Boy Scouts of America has announced a policy to deny 
membership to homosexual persons. 

The proposed resolution contains a finding that, although 
the Bank of America has stated that the Boy Scouts of 
America no longer discriminates on the basis of sexual 
orientation, a contrary public record exists to indicate that, 
in fact, the Boy Scouts of America does discriminate on the 
basis of sexual orientation. 

The proposed resolution states that the actions of the Bank 
of America in providing financial support to the Boy Scouts 
of America is inconsistent with the City's non- 
discrimination policies and with its policy not to do business 
with entities whose policies foster and encourage 
discrimination against any of the residents of San 
Francisco. 

Therefore, the proposed resolution urges the following: 

• That two City remittance banking accounts be 
transferred from the Bank of America. 

• That the City's revolving bank accounts be transferred 
from the Bank of America. 

• That the Bank of America not be used for the City's 
proposed direct payroll deposit program. 

• That all officers and employees of the City and County 
consider the use of financial institutions other than the 
Bank of America to conduct City business. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

93 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 18, 1992 



Comments: 



According to the Clerk of the Board, the sponsor of the 
proposed resolution has asked that consideration by the 
Finance Committee be continued until December 2, 1992. 

1. According to the City Treasurer, Ms. Mary Callanan, the 
City's two remittance accounts cited in the proposed 
resolution consist of two lock-box remittance accounts 
which were recently transferred to the Bank of America 
from another financial institution. Ms. Callanan states 
that these two lock-box remittance accounts are among 
three such accounts for which the City is currently 
soliciting competitive bids from financial institutions. 

A lock-box account involves the remittance of payments to 
the City of San Francisco through a post office box, which is 
attended by the financial institution to which the deposits 
are made. This system eliminates the need for preliminary 
processing by City employees and permits receipts to be 
expeditiously deposited to the City's accounts. 

2. The proposed resolution also urges the transfer of the 
City's revolving bank accounts. According to the 
Treasurer's report to the Board of Supervisors of September 
18, 1992, City departments maintain approximately 85 
separate checking accounts, of which 25 are with the Bank 
of America. The report estimates that these 25 checking 
accounts had a combined balance in September 1992 of 
$615,100. The Treasurer's list of these 25 accounts is 
attached to this report. 

Ms. Callanan states that departments exercise their 
discretion in selecting a bank for any revolving accounts 
which are under their control. Ms. Callanan states that 
revolving accounts which are held with the Bank of 
America tend to be less costly to the departments, since the 
fees for these accounts can be paid from the interest on the 
City's large compensation account with the Bank of 
America (see Comment 3). 

3. According to the Treasurer's September 18, 1992 report, 
the City maintains a compensating balance account with 
the Bank of America which contains funds transferred to or 
from many smaller accounts. The compensating balance 
account has an average daily balance of $37.5 million, 
according to the Treasurer's report, and the interest which 
accrues to the City from this account is used to pay the cost 
of numerous banking services, including the fees for the 25 
revolving accounts with the Bank of America which are 
held by individual City departments. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

94 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 18, 1992 

4. The proposed resolution would also urge that the Bank 
of America not be used for the City's proposed direct payroll 
deposit program. The City Controller, Mr. Ed Harrington, 
states that although the development of a direct payroll 
deposit program has been considered, efforts will not be 
made to implement such a program at least until the spring 
or summer of 1993. Mr. Harrington states that the City 
would select a bank to provide these services through a 
competitive bidding procedure. 

Recommendation; 1. Continue the proposed resolution to December 2, 1992 as 
requested by the sponsor of the proposed resolution. 

2. Approval of the proposed resolution is a policy matter for 
the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

95 



Attachment 
Fage 1 of 2 



APPENDIX A-l 



CITY DEPARTMENTS 

BANK ACCOUNTS 

BANK OF AMERICA 



(CHECKING ACCOUNTS ORIGINATED BY INDIVIDUAL DEPARTMENTS - 
SERVICE CHARGES PAID* FOR BY TREASURER'S ANALYSIS PROGRAM) 



DEPARTMENT 

ADULT PROBATION 
AIRPORTS COMMISSION 
ASIAN ARTS MUSEUM 
CITY ATTORNEY 
COMMISSION ON THE AGING 
CORONER 

PUBLIC LIBRARY 

HETCH HETCHY 

WATER DEPARTMENT 
Damage Claim 
Consumer Adjustment 
Consumer Deposit 
Regular 

8.F. GENERAL HOSPITAL 
Revolving 



BANK 
LOCATION 


AVERAGE OR 
LATEST BALANCE 


1 Powell Street 


$ 650. 


S.F.I. A. 


10,000. 


800 Irving 


1,000. 


1 Powell Street 


65,000. 


1525 Market 


300. 


345 Montgomery 
1525 Market 


19,900. 
500. 


1 Powell Street 


5,000. 


1 Powell Street 


7,500. 


1 Powell Street 
1 Powell Street 
1 Powell Street 
1 Powell Street 


1,200. 
25,000. 

-0- 
58,000. 



2850 - 24th Street 



38,200, 



96 



Attachment 
Page 2 of 2 



APPENDIX A-2 



CITY DEPARTMENTS 

BANK ACCOUNTS 

BANK OF AMERICA 



, (CHECKING ACCOUNTS ORIGINATED BY INDIVIDUAL 
DEPARTMENTS - SERVICE CHARGES PAID BY DEPARTMENTS) 



DEPARTMENT 

AGRICULTURE 

Weights 6 Measures 
Farmers Market 

DEPARTMENT OF ELECTRICITY 
& BUREAU OF TELECOMMUNICA- 
TIONS 

LAGUNA HONDA HOSPITAL 
Patients Trust Fund 

POLICE DEPARTMENT 
Contingency Fund A 
Contingency Fund B 
Revolving 

PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO 

PUBLIC DEFENDER 

MUNICIPAL RAILWAY 

S.F. GENERAL HOSPITAL 
Patient Account 



BANK 
LOCATION 

2 090 Jerrold 

2090 Jerrold 

2090 Jerrold 

288 West Portal 

1 Powell Street 
1 Powell Street 
1 Powell Street 

1 Market Plaza 

345 Montgomery 

4141 Geary 

2850 - 24th Street 



AVERAGE OR 
LATEST BALANCE 

$ 400. 

200. 



2,000, 

32,000, 

3,000, 

217,000, 

7,000, 

69,000, 

250, 

17,000, 

35,000, 



97 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 18, 1992 

Items 9 and 10 - Files 97-92-61 and 172-92-15 

Note: These items were continued from the November 9, 1992 Recessed Finance 
Committee Meeting. 



Departments: 
Items: 



Location: 

Purpose of 
Purchase: 



Seller: 



Developer: 



Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) 

File 172-92-15, a proposed ordinance, contains the following 
provisions: 

(1) Approving and authorizing the execution and delivery of 
an agreement of purchase and sale for real estate (including 
certain indemnities and the release of the seller contained 
therein); 

(2) Approving and authorizing (a) an assignment of purchase 
for sale of real estate; (b) a facilities lease (including certain 
indemnities contained therein); (c) a trust agreement 
(including certain indemnities contained therein); and (d) an 
official statement; 

(3) Authorizing the distribution of an official notice inviting 
bids in connection with the City and County of San Francisco 
Certificates of Participation (1660 Mission Street Project) 
Series 1993; 

(4) Authorizing the Chief Adniini strati ve Officer to fix rents 
to be charged and to submit budgets for approval; 

(5) Authorizing and ratifying execution of documents 
reasonably necessary for the execution, delivery and sale of 
the Certificates of Participation; and 

(6) Adopting findings pursuant to City Planning Code Section 
101.1, all in connection with the acquisition and leasing of the 
1660 Mission Street property. 

File 97-92-61 is a proposed ordinance amending the San 
Francisco Administrative Code by adding Chapter 10F 
thereof to establish a surcharge on plan, permit, 
environmental review, and related fees to recover costs for 
acquiring office space at 1660 Mission Street. 

1660 Mission Street 



To purchase a building as a location for a "One Stop Permit 
Shop" for building permits, i.e., to consolidate Bureau of 
Building Inspection, Planning Department, and Fire 
Department permit processes at a single location. 

Paul B. Andrew, bankruptcy trustee appointed by the court to 
oversee the asset 

The Derringer Group 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

98 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 18, 1992 



No. of Sq. Ft: 
Total Cost 



Source of Funds: 



Description: 



97,536 gross square feet; 66,987 net rentable square feet 

$5,700,000 

($85.09 per net rentable square foot; however, see Comment 11 

regarding an additional cost of $3.5 million for tenant 

improvements) 

Surcharge on plan, permit, environmental review, and 
related fees, collected by various departments, to support debt 
service for Certificates of Participation 

Currently, persons or companies wishing to build or remodel 
in San Francisco must visit up to four locations to receive 
permit approval: City-owned 450 McAllister, which houses 
the Department of City Planning, the DPW Bureau of 
Building Inspection, and certain Fire Department employees 
with permit responsibility; City Hall, which houses the DPW 
Division of Surveys and Maps; leased space at 524 Golden 
Gate, which houses employees of the Bureau of Building 
Inspection responsible for Plumbing and Electrical Permits; 
and leased space at Fox Plaza, which houses the code 
enforcement portion of the DPW Bureau of Building 
Inspection. 

The proposed ordinance would support the purchase of 1660 
Mission Street, an office building containing 66,987 rentable 
square feet of unfinished space, at a cost of approximately 
$5.7 million. The building would be used to establish a "One 
Stop Permit Shop" (i.e., to consolidate Bureau of Building 
Inspection, Planning Department, and Fire Department 
permit processes at a single location instead of in the four 
current locations). 1660 Mission Street was completed to core 
and shell condition in mid- 1991 and is a six-story steel frame 
office building with a one level subterranean garage. 
Included in the purchase price of this building is an adjacent 
vacant lot containing approximately 5,080 square feet, which 
will be used for parking. 

The proposed purchase of 1660 Mission Street is to be 
financed with Series 1993 Certificates of Participation. 
Certificates of Participation are proportionate interests in the 
lease-purchase of property, which are sold to investors. The 
investors would receive a return on their investment through 
the lease payments made by the City. The City would assign 
its rights under the Purchase and Sale Agreement to a 
trustee, who would issue the Certificates of Participation. 
The City would then be obligated to make lease payments to 
the trustee to repay the holders of the Certificates of 
Participation. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

99 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 18, 1992 



To support these Certificates of Participation, the CAO 
proposes to implement a surcharge on the following 
categories of fees: 

(a) Plan Review Fees; 

(b) Building Code Fees; 

(c) Public Works fees; 

(d) Planning Code fees; 

(e) Administrative Code fees. 

All of these fees would be increased, through a surcharge, as 
follows: 

(1) 3 percent for the period commencing July 1, 1993 through 
June 30, 1995; 

(2) a total of 4.5 percent for the period commencing July 1, 
1995 through June 30, 2000; and 

(3) a total of 6.5 percent for the period commencing July 1, 
2000 through June 30, 2005. 

Effective July 1, 2005, the surcharge would expire. 

The exact amount of the increase in fees, representing a 
surcharge, would vary depending on the size and complexity 
of the project, Mr. Larry Litchfield of the Bureau of Building 
Inspection reports. Based on estimated average sizes for 
small, medium and large jobs, Mr. Don McConlogue of the 
BBI reports that this surcharge would result in the following 
dollar costs: 

(1) 53 percent of permits consist of small residential projects, 
with an average value of $5,800. Such projects would result in 
a surcharge of $4.53 in the first period; $6.80 in the second 
period; and $9.82 in the third period; 

(2) 42 percent of permits consist of medium sized residential 
or commercial projects, with an average value of $47,000. 
Such projects would result in a surcharge of $42.83 in the 
first period; $64.25 in the second period; and $92.80 in the 
third period; 

(3) . 1 percent of permits consist of large commercial projects, 
with an average value of $402,000. Such a project would result 
in a surcharge of $198.88 in the first period, $298.32 in the 
second period; and $430.90 in the third period. 

Mr. McConlogue reports that the remaining approximately 5 
percent of permits include miscellaneous projects whose fees 
are consistent with the fees noted above. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

100 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 18, 1992 



Fees are based on the valuation of a construction project, Mr. 
McConlogue advises. According to Mr. Fred Weiner of the 
CAO's Office, these surcharges are structured so as to result 
in revenues equal to the total debt service over the financing 
period, including the purchase price of the building, at $5.7 
million, and tenant improvements, at $3.5 million, for a total 
of $9.2 million plus financing costs of approximately $1.87 
million, for a total of $11.07 million plus interest. 

Comments: 1. According to Mr. Litchfield, 1660 Mission includes six 

floors, which would be used as follows: 

First Floor: 

to include 95 parking spaces, to be made available for public 
parking; and public information booths where seven 
employees would provide information regarding the status of 
an application, code interpretations, zoning and Fire Code 
information, etc. 

Second Floor: 

to include the permit center and the construction services 

center. 



Third and Fourth Floor: 

to include the building, electrical, plumbing, housing and 

code enforcement sections, including all inspectors. 

Fifth Floor: 

to include the administrative offices for the various applicable 

departments. 

Sixth Floor: 

to include offices for agency heads, Planning Commission 
meeting rooms, employee meeting rooms, other meeting 
room space, and an employee lunch room. (Note: The Budget 
Analyst questions the necessity of a lunch room.) 

2. Mr. Weiner advises that approximately 300 employees, now 
occupying the four different locations noted in the description 
above, would relocate to 1660 Mission Street. According to Mr. 
DeLucchi, Director of Property, 450 McAllister consists of 
approximately 40,000 square foot, while the remaining three 
locations consist of approximately 8,300 square feet, for a total 
of 48,300 square feet. 1660 Mission Street contains 66,987 
rentable square feet, representing an increase of 18,687 
square feet, or approximately 39 percent. Each employee 
would occupy an average of 223 square feet, including a 
portion of public meeting rooms and interview rooms, 
whereas presently each employee occupies an average of 146 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

101 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 18, 1992 



square feet. Mr. DeLucchi advises that current conditions are 
overcrowded, and that the new space would also include 
meeting and interview rooms not currently in place. 

3. Mr. Litchfield anticipates a 20 percent improvement in 
efficiency as a result of the proposed "One Stop Permit Shop." 
This 20 percent improvement in efficiency is based on the 
experiences of Phoenix, Arizona, and San Diego, California, 
where the consolidation of permit processing has resulted in 
a 20 percent reduction in permit processing time. However, 
there is no documentation as to the percentage of efficiency 
that would be achieved in San Francisco. Mr. Litchfield 
advises that, based on meetings with permit applicants, most 
permit applicants who have been in contact with the 
departments have indicated a willingness to pay increased 
fees in exchange for reduced permit processing time. 
However, there is no documentation as to whether such 
applicants, who have been in contact with the various 
departments, are representative of all of the applicants on an 
annual basis. Currently, permit processing time takes from 
one day for small remodeling projects, such as kitchen 
remodeling, reroofing, or window replacement, to 90 days for 
large construction projects. 

4. Mr. Litchfield advises that because of the increased 
efficiency, the various departments would be able to process a 
larger number of permits in the proposed new building with 
the same number of employees. Therefore, the proposed new 
building would accommodate any growth in permit requests 
in future years, Mr. Litchfield reports. 

5. According to Mr. Litchfield, if the proposed "One Stop 
Permit Shop" is established at 1660 Mission, the permit 
application process would be restructured. Instead of 
applicants submitting applications in writing which are later 
reviewed by permit processors, applicants would meet with 
permit processors to review applications in person. This new 
process is anticipated to result in substantial increased 
efficiencies beyond the anticipated 20 percent increased 
efficiency noted above, Mr. Litchfield reports. 

6. Mr. Litchfield reports that, in accordance with a 1989 
recommendation by the Budget Analyst, permit processing 
has already been somewhat consolidated into a Construction 
Services Center at 450 McAllister. The Construction Services 
Center consists of two City Planning employees, two Fire 
Department employees, and two Surveys and Mapping 
employees who provide information to the public. Mr. 
Litchfield advises that this consolidation has resulted in the 
ability to issue permits over the counter for small residential 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

102 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 18, 1992 



improvement projects. However, due to space limitations at 
450 McAllister, most employees who carry out permit 
processing functions are located on a number of different 
floors. As of the writing of this report, the Budget Analyst has 
not been provided with any documentation regarding 
increased efficiency as a result of the Construction Services 
Center. 

7. According to Mr. Weiner, savings from terminating the 
lease at 524 Golden Gate and at Fox Plaza would total 
approximately $128,868 per year, including $46,068 for Fox 
Plaza and $82,800 at 524 Golden Gate. Mr. Weiner advises 
that these leases will terminate prior to the proposed 
occupation of 1660 Mission Street. Future additional rental 
costs would be avoided when the employees were moved to 
1660 Mission Street from the City-owned 450 McAllister, 
because this would enable City Hall employees to relocate to 
450 McAllister during seismic renovations at City Hall, 
instead of relocating to rented spaces, Mr. Litchfield advises. 

8. Mr. Weiner reports that the CAO had previously 
considered constructing a new building on the City-owned 
450 McAllister site and adjoining lots. However, Mr. Weiner 
advises that the cost of constructing a new building at that 
site would be approximately $60 to $70 million. That site is 
now proposed as a possible location for a new courthouse, to 
be funded from the Courthouse Construction Fund, Ms. Kate 
Harrison of the Superior Court advises. 

9. Mr. Litchfield reports that several alternative locations 
were investigated for possible rental rather than purchase, 
including the Coca Cola Building on 11th Street, 614 Van 
Ness at Golden Gate. However, these buildings would be 
costly to rent. In addition, these buildings are not seismically 
sound or handicapped accessible, and would therefore 
require substantial improvements, Mr. Litchefield reports. 
According to Mr. DeLucchi, 1660 Mission Street was 
constructed in accordance with the seismic safety standards 
as set forth in the 1979 Uniform Building Code, as mandated 
by the Board of Supervisors in January, 1984. The building is 
also handicapped accessible, in accordance with Title 24 of 
the State Code. 

10. According to Mr. DeLucchi, construction on 1660 Mission 
began four years ago. One year ago, after the Darringer 
Group declared bankruptcy, the building came into the 
jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court. The City has negotiated 
to pay $5,700,000 for 1660 Mission, less outstanding fees owed 
to the City in the amount of $455,000 for affordable housing. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

103 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 18, 1992 



These fees would be paid by the City from an escrow account. 
The seller would receive the remaining $5,245,000. 

11. If the proposed ordinance is approved, Mr. Litchfield 
anticipates that tenant improvements would be completed 
and the building could be occupied by January 1, 1994. Such 
tenant improvements would cost approximately $3.5 million. 
The estimated $3.5 million in tenant improvements would be 
in addition to the proposed purchase price of $5.7 million, for 
a total acquisition price for 1660 Mission Street of $9.2 million, 
which would be paid from the Certificates of Participation 
plus interest. Tenant improvements consist of constructing 
walls, partitions, installing heat, ventilation, and air 
conditioning, carpeting, etc. Moving costs are included in the 
budget for tenant improvements, Mr. Weiner reports. The 
funds for these tenant improvements would come from the 
sale of the Certificates of Participation noted above, which 
would be repaid from the fee surcharges. 

12. According to Mr. DeLucchi, tenant improvements would 
need to be completed at any facility occupied by the City. The 
cost of such improvements would vary based on the 
negotiations with the seller or renter, according to Mr. 
DeLucchi. 

13. Mr. DeLucchi advises that the cost to the City of 
constructing a new building comparable to the present 1660 
Mission Street building is estimated to be approximately 
$11,803,900, (including approximately $10,725,000 (based on 
$110 per gross square foot times approximately 97,500 square 
feet) for the building alone, plus approximately $1,078,800 for 
the land (based on $60 per square foot times 17,980 total 
square feet of land)) or over twice the cost of the proposed 
acquisition of 1660 Mission Street for $5,700,000. Tenant 
improvements, which are budgeted for 1660 Mission at 
approximately $3.5 million in addition to the purchase price, 
would be in addition to construction and land costs for a new 
building. Therefore, the estimated cost of constructing a new 
building is approximately $15,303,900 plus interest 
(assuming that tenant improvement costs for a new building 
would be $3.5 million), or approximately $6,103,900, or 66 
percent more than purchasing 1660 Mission Street, which is 
estimated to cost $9.2 million, including tenant 
improvements. Financing costs for this new building would 
be higher than comparable costs to acquire 1660 Mission 
because the total Certificates of Participation issue would be 
higher. Mr. Weiner advises that the Derringer Group and 
related financing institutions invested approximately $17 
million in the construction of 1660 Mission Street. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

104 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 18, 1992 

14. Mr. Litchfield advises that the City's permit processing 
procedures are anticipated to be improved because a new 
employee with inter-departmental authority is being hired to 
coordinate permit processing. A new classification for this 
position has been approved by the Civil Service Commission 
and has been included in the FY 1992-93 budget. The new 
position will also be the person responsible for coordinating 
the Construction Services Center. If the proposed ordinance 
is approved, this new position would be instrumental in 
laying out and formalizing the permit processing plans at 
1660 Mission Street, Mr. Litchfield reports. 

15. The Budget Analyst notes that the departments have no 
documentation supporting anticipated increased efficiency or 
reduced rental costs. Therefore, the Budget Analyst 
recommends that, if the Board of Supervisors approves this 
proposed ordinance, the various departments be required to 
present an annual report to the Board of Supervisors 
documenting increased efficiency, reduced rental costs, and 
any other relevant information as a result of the proposed 
building purchase. 

16. According to Mr. Weiner, the CAO anticipates 
introducing an Amendment of the Whole for the proposed 
ordinance (File 172-92-15) that would allow the CAO to 
negotiate the sale of the Certificates of Participation to an 
underwriter, if such a negotiation would be in the best 
interests of the City. However, the CAO currently anticipates 
competitively bidding the Certificates of Participation unless 
the market changes significantly over the next few months. 

Recommendations: (1) Amend the proposed ordinance to require annual reports 
documenting improvements in efficiency, reduced rental 
costs, and any other relevant information as a result of the 
proposed building purchase. (File 172-92-15) 

(2) Approval of the proposed ordinance, as amended, is a 
policy matter for the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

105 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 18, 1992 

Item 11 -File 79-92-3 

The proposed resolution would approve the 1993 Community Development 
Program of up to $21,708,373 and authorize the Mayor, on behalf of the City and 
County of San Francisco, to apply for, receive and expend the City's 1993 
Community Development Block Grant (CDBGX entitlement from the U. S. 
Department of Housing and Urban Development. The proposed resolution would 
also transfer and expend (a) reprogrammed funds, included in the amount of 
$21,708,373, from prior year Community Development Programs and (b) 
additional program income of $16,043.00 generated by the San Francisco 
Redevelopment Agency. The proposed resolution would also approve expenditure 
schedules for recipient departments and agencies including indirect costs, would 
determine that no environmental evaluation is required and would authorize the 
receipt of any funds in excess of $21,708,373 to be placed in a Contingency Fund. 

Please refer to the Budget Analyst's separate report of November 16, 1992 on 
the Mayor's proposed 1993 Community Development Program. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

106 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 18, 1992 

Item 12 - File 38-92-25 

Note: This item was continued by the Finance Committee at its meeting of 
November 4, 1992. 



Department: 

Item: 

Amount: 
Description: 



Comments: 



Recreation and Park Department 

Resolution accepting a cash gift of $5,480 from Wells 
Fargo Bank, for publication of the Recreation and Park 
Department Summer Activities Brochure. 

$5,480 

The Recreation and Park Department reports that Wells 
Fargo Bank has donated a $5,480 cash gift to fund the 
publication of the Department's 1992 summer activities 
brochure. The Recreation and Park Department advises 
that the $5,480 donation, which has already been accepted 
and expended by the Department, helped to fund the 
publication of approximately 70,000 brochures, which 
were distributed to San Francisco schools, libraries and 
community agencies. The total cost of these brochures 
was $13,882 with the balance of $8,402 funded by General 
Fund monies ($5,402), Pier 39 ($2,000) and McKesson 
Foundation ($1,000). 

According to Ms. Diane Palacio, of the Recreation and 
Park Department, the $5,480 charitable donation by Wells 
Fargo Bank represented a good will effort on the part of 
the bank. 

1. As noted above, the Department has already accepted 
and expended the $5,480. Therefore, the proposed 
legislation should be amended to authorize the 
Department to accept the gift retroactively. Ms. Palacio 
advises that the Department did not previously request 
authorization from the Board of Supervisors for the 
acceptance of this gift due to an unintentional 
administrative oversight. 

2. The Department is not requesting authorization to 
accept the $2,000 from Pier 39 and the $1,000 from 
McKesson Foundation because under Administrative 
Code Section 10.116, the Board of Supervisors authorizes 
City departments to accept cash gifts which do not exceed 
$5,000. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

107 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 18, 1992 

Recommendation: Amend the proposed resolution to authorize the 

Department to accept the gift retroactively, and approve 
the resolution as amended. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

108 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 18, 1992 



Ttem 13 - File 64-92-25 
Departments: 



Item: 



Location: 



Purpose of Lease: 



Lesson 

No. of Sq. Ft and 
Cos t per Month: 



Annual Cost: 

% Increase 
Over 1991-92: 



Real Estate 
Police Department 
Port 

Resolution authorizing exercise of an option to extend the 
existing lease of Pier 70 from the Port of San Francisco for 
use by the Police Department. 

Pier 70 (Assessor's Block 4052, Lot 1) 

Storage of automobiles confiscated by the Pick Your Part Auto 
Wrecking Company (the Police Department contracts with 
this firm for vehicle towing services). 

San Francisco Port 



$40,354 per month for approximately 336,282 sq. ft. = 
approximately $0.12 per sq. ft. per month. 

$484,248 



0.5 percent 



Janitor Services 
Provided by Lesson Yes 



Term of Lease: 



July 1, 1992 to June 30, 1997 (Five Years) 



Right of Renewal: No options remain on this lease. 

Source of Funds: Under the Police Department's contract with Pick Your Part 
Auto Wrecking Company, the company is responsible for 
paying the rent on this property. There is no cost to the City. 

Comment: 1. The Real Estate Department reports that the proposed 

monthly rental amount of $40,354 represents the fair market 
rental of the space to be leased. 

2. As noted above, the lease extension has an effective date of 
July 1, 1992. Therefore the legislation should be amended to 
authorize the Police Department to exercise the option to 
extend the lease retroactively. 

Recommendation: Amend the resolution to authorize the Police Department to 
exercise the option to extend the lease retroactively. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

109 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 18, 1992 

Item 14 -File 64-92-26 
Departments: 



Item: 

Location: 
Purpose of Lease: 

Lessor: 

No.ofSq.Ftand 
Cost per Month: 

Annual Cost: 
Term of Lease: 
Source of Funds: 
Comments: 



Real Estate 
Public Health 

Resolution authorizing a new lease of real property at 25 
Taylor Street, Rooms 612 and 614, for the Department of 
Public Health 

25 Taylor Street, Rooms 612 and 614 

Offices for the Tuberculosis Control staff engaged in 
performing tuberculosis and HP/ screening and prevention 
services to high risk Tenderloin residents 

Shorenstein Company 

$300 per month, including gas, electricity, water, scavenger 
and janitorial services for approximately 460 sq. ft. = 
approximately $0.65 per sq. ft. per month 

$3,600 

36 months from date of approval 

Centers for Disease Control 

1. The proposed office space would be used for TB screening 
at the Ambassador Hotel and for persons out of drug 
treatment programs in the Tenderloin District. Currently, 
Tenderloin residents must travel to San Francisco General 
Hospital for TB testing. This outreach program to the 
Tenderloin is fully supported by the Centers for Disease 
Control. 

2. According to Mr. Carlos Balladeros of the Department of 
Public Health, funds for this proposed lease were included in 
a Centers for Disease Control grant of $268,923 for 
Tuberculosis Testing in the Tenderloin (File 146-92-4.2). 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

110 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 18, 1992 

Item 15 -File 100-92-1.4 



Department: 

Item: 

Amount: 

Source 
of Funds: 

Description: 



Mayor's Office of Children, Youth and their Families 
(MOCYF) 

Release of reserved funds 

$3,275,126 



1992-93 Children's Fund Budget 

Section 6.415 was added to the San Francisco Charter to effect 
the Children's Amendment that was approved by the electorate 
as Proposition J in November, 1991. The Children's 
Amendment established a new Special Fund, the San 
Francisco Children's Fund, to be expended exclusively to 
provide services for children above and beyond services which 
have been previously funded in the City's budget. 

For fiscal year 1992-93, the Children's Fund is $5.7 million in 
accordance with the requirements of the Children's 
Amendment, including $3,275,126 for contractual services. In 
approving the 1992-93 budget, the $3,275,126 was reserved 
pending selection of the contractors by the MOCYF. 

MOCYF has now completed the Request for Proposal (RFP) 
contractor selection process and requests release of the 
reserved $3,275,126 in order to begin contractual services on 
January 1, 1993. The RFP process that began in July, 1992 
required applicant contractors to submit 1) a Statement of 
Intent which provided general details on the applicants and 
their proposed programs (due July 17, 1992) and 2) a Final 
Proposal (due July 24, 1992). The MOCYF received 170 
Statement of Intents and 124 Final Proposals. An Ad-Hoc 
Advisory Panel on Children's Services, consisting of 36 citizens 
appointed by the Mayor, reviewed the 124 Final Proposals that 
requested total funding of $12,763,362 for full year contracts, or 
approximately four times the available 1992-93 funding for 
contractual services of $3,275,126. 

In order to be able to contract for the maximum level of 
services for the $3,275,126 in available funding for 1992-93, the 
MOCYF will contract for nine months from January 1 through 
September 30, 1993 using the $3,275,126 for 1992-93 Children's 
Fund instead of contracting for a full 12 months with the same 
amount of funding, as would normally be done. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

111 



•Memo to Finance Committee 
November 18, 1992 



The Ad-Hoc Advisory Panel initially selected 32 proposals for 
funding. Those applicants that were not selected were allowed 
to appeal the Ad-Hoc Advisory Panel's decision to a Panel 
consisting of the Chairs (or their representatives) of the five 
Committees (see Comment No. 2). 43 applicant appeals were 
heard by the Panel over a three-day period. Eight of the 
appealing applicants were selected as contractors for 1992-93 
for a total of 40 contractors (32 initially selected plus 8 selected 
on appeal). The MOCYF reviewed the Ad-Hoc Advisory Panel's 
recommendations and concurred with the selection of the 40 
contractors. 

The contractors that were selected for 1992-93 are listed by 
service and program categories as follows: 



CHILDCARE SERVICE 
Vendor Voucher Program 

Children's Council of San Francisco 
Wu Yee Children's Services 
Subtotal 

Provider Subsidies Program 

Audrey L. Smith Child Development Center, Inc. 
Economic Opportunity Council 
Holy Family Day Care 
San Francisco Jewish Community Center 
Subtotal 

Respite Care Program 

CAHEED, Inc. 

Children's Council of San Francisco 
Wu Yee Children's Services 
Subtotal 

Licensing Program 

Children's Council of San Francisco 
Wu Yee Children's Services 
Subtotal 

Total - Childcare Service 



$227,382 
227.382 



$120,000 
75,000 
62,100 
75.000 



$25,000 
25,000 

2 5,000 



$18,750 
18. 75Q 



$454,764 



332,100 



75,000 

37,500 
$899364 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

112 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 18, 1992 

HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICE 
Family Resource Center Program 
Family Service Agency of San Francisco 

Homeless Children Advocacy Program 

Hamilton Family Center 

Mental Health Service Childcare Program 
Children's Council of San Francisco 
Daycare Consultants 
Learning Services of Northern California 
Subtotal 

Child Abuse Prevention Program 

Wu Yee Children's Services 

Total - Health and Social Service 

JOB READINESS. TRAINING AND PLACEMENT 
Job Readiness/General Education Diploma Program 

Bridges - From School To Work 
Central City Hospitality House 
Community Educational Services 
San Francisco Conservation Corps 
Youth Guidance Center Improvement Committee 
Subtotal 

Mayor's Youth Employment & Education Program 

Japanese Community Youth Council 

Early Exposure Program 

Visitation Valley Community Center 

Total - Job Readiness, Training and Placement 

DELINQUENCY PREVENTION AND EDUCATION 
Multi-service Teen Centers Program 

Operation Contact, Inc. 
RAP, Inc. 
Subtotal 

Community Based Tutorials Program 

Camp Fire Boys & Girls 
Mission Reading Clinic 
San Francisco Educational Services, Inc. 
Subtotal 





$150,000 




56,250 


$37,500 
85,457 
24,333 


147,290 




29.817 




$383357 


$81,539 
64,500 

225,000 
55,012 
43,132 


$469,183 




300,000 




35.510 




$804,693 


$133,127 
133.127 


$266,254 


$44,248 

49,749 

169.661 





263,658 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

113 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 18, 1992 

Alternatives to Detention Program 

Center on Juvenile And Criminal Justice 

Total - Delinquency Prevention and Education 

SPECIAL NEEDS 
Childcare 

Asian Perinatal Advocates/Volunteers of SFGH 
Easter Seal Society of San Francisco 
Northern California Service League 
Subtotal 

Health & Social Services 

Children's Center for Movement Therapy 
Teenage Pregnancy & Parenting Project 
Subtotal 

Job Readiness, Training & Placement 

California Lawyers for the Arts 
Girls Leadership Project of San Francisco 
Horizons Unlimited of San Francisco 
Subtotal 

Delinquency Prevention & Education 

Lavender Youth Recreation Information Center 
Mission Youth Soccer League 
Subtotal 

Total - Special Needs Services 

TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 

MOCYF Contract Administration Services 

Unallocated 

PROPOSED RELEASE OF RESERVE 



Comments: 1. In October 1992, the Board of Supervisors adopted a 

resolution to urge the Mayor to utilize the 1992-93 Children's 
Services Plan as the foundation for the development of the 1993- 
94 Children's Services Plan and in order to maintain 
continuity in the provision of contractual services, to continue 
contracting with the same contractors, at the same service 
levels and at approximately the same amount (estimated at 
$3,114,638) in the succeeding nine month period from October 
1, 1993 through June 30, 1994 from the estimated $13.6 million 
to be allocated to the Children's Fund for 1993-94. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

114 





130,000 




$659,912 


$37,500 

7,829 

13,500 


$58^29 


$15,150 
41,708 


56,858 


$8,610 
41,250 
93,750 


143,610 


$89,146 
17,755 


106.901 




$3ffi,198 




$3,113^24 




99,860 




61.742 




$3^75,126 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 18, 1992 



Recommendation: 



2. The Ad-Hoc Advisory Panel consists of 36 citizens 
appointed by the Mayor. The Ad-Hoc Advisory Panel is 
broken down into five Committees, one for each of the five 
service categories. The Committees range in size from five to 
nine members. The Panel that reviewed appeals of the Ad- 
Hoc Advisory Panel's funding recommendations consisted of 
the Chairs (or a representative) of each of the five 
Committees. 

3. MOCYF indicates that the $61,742 identified as 
Unallocated in the proposed release of reserve should be 
designated for future expansion of the MOCYF contract 
administration. Therefore, the $61,742 should continue to be 
reserved pending submission of cost and budget details of 
MOYCF contract administration growth. 

Release the reserve on $3,213,384 ($3,275,126 requested release 
less $61,742 to continue to be reserved for future growth of 
MOYCF contract administration) and continue the reserve 
on the $61,742 for future growth of MOYCF contract 
administration. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



115 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 18, 1992 

Item 16 -File 101-92-9 

Department: Arts Commission 

Item: Supplemental Appropriation Ordinance 

Amount: $5,100 

Source of Funds: Street Artist Program 

Description: The Art Commission approved Resolution No. 1102-92—433, 

dated November 2, 1992, authorizing an amount not to exceed 
$5,100 from the Street Artist Program to be used to fund the 
Police Department for enforcing the Street Artist Ordinance 
in the downtown area during the month of December, 1992. 
This request is to effect said application of funds, which was 
not included in the Art Commission's FY 1992-93 annual 
budget. 

According to the Art Commission, a special enforcement 
program is needed during the holiday season in the 
downtown area because on the expected influx of unlicensed 
(illegal) vendors, which, if allowed, would have the following 
undesirable effects: (1) obstruction of sidewalks; (2) sale of 
goods that have not been examined by the Art Commission or 
the Police Department, and are thus unauthorized; and (3) 
penalize licensed street artists and store merchants who are 
required to pay taxes and who incur other expenses. 

Sections 10B.1. through 10B.5. of the Administrative Code 
provide for special law enforcement. In general, any person, 
corporation, organization, etc., may request that the Police 
Department provide personnel for law enforcement purposes. 
If such request is approved by the Police Department, 
payment for the services is made on a cost basis, plus a 22.5 
percent administrative overhead charge, which is deposited 
to the General Fund unappropriated balance. The cost basis 
for compensating Police Department personnel for said 
services is at time and one-half, and the minimum 
assignment period is four hours per employee. 

As reported by Mr. Howard Lazar of the Art Commission, the 
proposed ordinance would provide funding for a total of 123 
hours of Police Department services, including six hours of 
supervision/scheduling, 15 hours of travel (one hour for each 
day of patrol), and 102 hours of patrol, scheduled as follows: 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

116 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 18, 1992 













Number 












of Patrol 


Date 




DavofWeek 


Timeofdav 


Pours 


December 


9 


Wednesday 


Noon- 


- 5 p.m. 


5 


December 


10 


Thursday 


Noon- 


- 5 p.m. 


5 


December 


11 


Friday 


Noon- 


- 5 p.m. 


5 


December 


12 


Saturday 


Noon- 


-5 p.m. 


5 


December 


16 


Wednesday 


Noon- 


- 5 p.m. 


5 


December 


17 


Thursday 


Noon- 


- 5 p.m. 


5 


December 


18 


Friday 


Noon- 


- 8 p.m. 


8 


December 


39 


Saturday 


Noon- 


- 8 p.m. 


8 


December 


20 


Sunday 


Noon- 


- 8 p.m. 


8 


December 


21 


Monday 


Noon- 


- 8 p.m. 


8 


December 


22 


Tuesday 


Noon- 


- 8 p.m. 


8 


December 


23 


Wednesday 


Noon - 


- 8 p.m. 


8 


December 


24 


Thursday 


Noon- 


- 8 p.m. 


8 


December 


26 


Saturday 


Noon- 


- 8 p.m. 


8 


December 


27 


Sunday 


Noon- 


- 8 p.m. 


8 



Total Patrol Hours 



102 



The costs for the enforcement services would be for salaries 
and related benefits, on a time and one-half basis, as shown 
below. The adhiinistrative charge of 22.5 percent is included 
in the hourly rates. 

82.5 day hours @ $40.67/hour $3,355.28 

34.5 night hours @ $42.37/hour 1,461.78 
6 hours for supervision/scheduling 

@$47.14/hour 282.84 

Total $5,099.90 

Mr. John Madden, Chief Assistant Controller, reports that 
the Street Artist Fund received revenues in the amount of 
approximately $121,000 in FY 1991-92. Mr. Madden reports 
that the Street Artist Fund currently has a surplus balance of 
$5,112, which would be the revenue source for the requested 
enforcement program. 

The Street Artist Ordinance, which was created by initiative 
in November of 1975, provides in Section 7 that "All or part of 
funds derived from the fees paid by street artists and 
craftsmen may be assigned by the Board of Supervisors to the 
Art Commission for use in paying members of the Advisory 
Committee as set forth in Section 2 above and to the San 
Francisco Police Department for enforcement of this 
Proposition." The proposed ordinance complies with this 
provision of the Street Artist Ordinance. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

117 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 18, 1992 



Comments: 1. Mr. Lazar reports that a full time Art Commission 

employee previously had responsibility for enforcing the 
Street Artist Ordinance, but that the position was deleted by 
the Mayor from the budget during FY 1991-92 due to a lack of 
sufficient funding. Mr. Lazar reports that the full-time 
employee was not a peace officer. 

2. As previously cited, expenditures for the proposed Police 
Department services would include 15 hours of travel time. 
Police Department fiscal policy provides that "one half hour 
travel time shall be paid going to and coming from a filming 
location or special assignment location." 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed ordinance. 



//77,/W 



Harvey M. Rose 



cc: Supervisor Gonzalez 
Supervisor Migden 
Supervisor Hallinan 
President Shelley 
Supervisor Achtenberg 
Supervisor Alioto 
Supervisor Britt 
Supervisor Conroy 
Supervisor Hsieh 
Supervisor Kennedy 
Supervisor Maher 
Clerk of the Board 
Chief Administrative Officer 
Controller 
Jean Mariani 
Barbara Kolesar 
Ted Lakey 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

118 



F 

.25 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 18, 1992 



// 
Item 7 - File 118-92-8 

Department: 

Item: 



Public Library, "Documents ODcpt. 
JVFmQ Qe,rry%ptfi 



REVISED 



Department of Public Health (DPH) 

The proposed ordinance would amend the Health Code by 
adding Article 25, Sections 1401 through 1413 to provide for a 
program for enforcement of the California Medical Waste 
Management Act and for registration, permitting, 
inspections and administrative fees for medical waste 
generators, treatment, and storage facilities. 

Description: The proposed Medical Waste Generator Registration, 

Permitting, Inspection and Fee Ordinance (Medical Waste 
Ordinance) would regulate the storage, treatment, 
transportation, and disposal of medical waste within the 
City. The proposed ordinance would enable the City's DPH to 
regulate private and public medical waste generator agencies 
located in the City and County of San Francisco. 

The proposed ordinance contains a two page technical 
definition of "medical waste." Generally, "medical waste" is 
the discarded superfluous material from medical or 
veterinary agencies that may contain infectious disease 
organisms and, therefore, is a health threat to humans and 
animals. Used hypodermic needles, blood vials, bandages, 
and medical instruments are examples of medical waste. 

The ordinance would regulate the management of medical 
waste generated by various medical facilities including: 
hospitals, clinics, surgery centers, doctor's offices, veterinary 
offices, health care facilities, medical laboratories, and 
dental offices. Agencies having facilities that produce 
medical waste would be required to send to the DPH an 
informational document which includes general business 
information and information on the types and volumes of 
medical waste produced, medical waste handling, storage, 
treatment and disposal methods. The ordinance would 
require that medical waste could only be transported by State 
licensed hazardous waste haulers or certain medical waste 
generator agencies with limited hauling exemptions issued 
by the DPH. 

Agencies having facilities that treat medical waste generated 
on site would also be required to comply with specified 
provisions in the ordinance. Medical waste treatment is any 
method designed to destroy the biological hazard of medical 
waste so as to eliminate its potential for causing disease. The 
ordinance additionally would regulate the storage and 

. Ncf DOCLIMFMTS DEPT 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

83 






NOV 1 9 1992 



SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 18, 1992 



transfer of medical waste by requiring permits for the 
consolidation and use of common storage areas by a group of 
generators. 

The proposed ordinance contains specific regulations for 
large and small quantity generator agencies and fees that 
would be paid to the City (estimated revenues are detailed in 
Comment number 4 below) as follows: 

Large quantity generators agencies would be those agencies 
having facilities that generate more than 200 pounds of 
medical waste each month. (The proposed ordinance defines 
the constituents of "medical waste.") The proposed ordinance 
requires that large quantity generator agencies register with 
the DPH annually. In addition, the generator agency would 
be required to submit a Medical Waste Management Plan 
that includes general business information as well as 
information on the types and volumes of medical waste 
generated, medical waste handling, storage, treatment and 
disposal methods. 

This group of generator agencies would be subject to 
inspection on an annual basis by the City to ensure 
compliance with State and City requirements. Mr. Scott 
Nakamura, the Hazardous Waste Project Manager for the 
DPH Bureau of Toxics, Health and Safety Services, estimates 
that there are 177 agencies in San Francisco that would fit 
the large quantity medical waste generator definition of the 
proposed ordinance. This large quantity medical waste 
generator group includes 83 agencies that currently have 
State medical waste licensed facilities and 94 licensed 
laboratories, veterinary offices, and medical offices. The 
proposed ordinance would require the payment of annual 
registration fees to the City by large quantity generators 
agencies. These annual registration fees would range from 
$255 to $1,445 according to the size and type of facility. 

The proposed ordinance would require that Onsite Medical 
Waste Treatment Facility Permits be obtained from the DPH 
by large quantity generator agencies that want to treat and 
dispose of their own medical wastes. Large quantity medical 
waste generator agencies that want to treat their own 
medical wastes would be required to use approved methods 
which include the use of an autoclave, microwave, or 
incinerator. In addition, a health care facility accepting 
medical waste for treatment from small quantity generators 
located within 400 yards could do so as an onsite treatment 
facility. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

84 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 18, 1992 



Large quantity medical waste generator agencies wanting to 
obtain an onsite treatment permit would be required to 
submit an application containing business information, 
treatment method, facility treatment capacity, waste 
characterization, and estimated average monthly quantity of 
waste to be treated at the facility. Mr. Nakamura estimates 
that there are 21 agencies in the City that currently treat 
medical waste onsite. The annual permit fee for an onsite 
autoclave permit would be $255 and the annual permit fee for 
all other State Approved treatment methods would be $340. In 
addition, the Director of DPH would charge large quantity 
medical waste generator agencies wanting to obtain an onsite 
treatment permit a permit application fee equal to $85 for 
each hour that DPH staff spends processing the permit 
application. 

Small Quantity Generators would be those agencies having 
faculties that generate less than 200 pounds of medical waste 
each month. The proposed ordinance would regulate two 
subgroups of small quantity generator agencies. The two 
groups would include small quantity generator agencies that 
treat medical waste onsite and small quantity generators that 
do not treat medical waste onsite. 

Small quantity generators that treat medical waste onsite 
would be required to register, file a medical waste 
management plan, and submit applicable fees to the DPH on 
a biennial basis. The approved treatment methods for onsite 
medical waste treatment would include the use of steam 
sterilization, incineration, and microwave methods. The 
management plan would be required to describe the method 
to be used to treat, transport, and dispose of the medical 
waste. In addition, this group of generator agencies would be 
subject to inspection by the City on a biennial basis to ensure 
compliance with State and City requirements. Small quantity 
generators that treat medical waste onsite would be required 
to pay a registration fee of $255 every two years. Mr. 
Nakamura estimates that there are 15 agencies in the City 
that currently are small quantity generator agencies that 
treat medical waste onsite. 

Small quantity generators that do not treat medical waste 
onsite are required by the ordinance to submit to the DPH an 
informational document that describes how the medical 
waste is handled, stored, transported, and disposed. In 
addition, the ordinance requires that small quantity 
generator agencies pay a one time non-registrant fee of $75. 
Mr. Nakamura estimates that there are 1,600 small quantity 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

85 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 18, 1992 



generator agencies that would be required to submit the 
informational document and one time fee. 

Limited Quantity Hauling Exemptions would be required to 
be obtained from the DPH which would enable small quantity 
generator agencies to transport up to 20 pounds of medical 
waste per week. The medical waste would be required to be 
transported to a licensed medical waste treatment facility or 
transfer station before consolidation or treatment and 
disposal. Small quantity generator agencies applying for a 
Limited Quantity Hauling Exemption would be required to 
pay an annual fee of $85. Mr. Nakamura estimates that there 
are 50 small quantity generator agencies that would request 
Limited Quantity Hauling Exemptions. Agencies that haul 20 
pounds of medical waste per week or more would continue to 
be licensed and regulated by the State. 

Common Storage Facility permits would be obtained from the 
DPH for small quantity generator agencies that want to store 
medical waste until it is picked up by a licensed hauler. The 
permit could be issued to the group of small quantity 
generator agencies, the property owner or management 
firm, or medical waste hauler. The fee for a Common Storage 
Facility permit would range from $213 to $425 depending on 
the number of generator agencies served by the storage 
facility. Mr. Nakamura estimates that there are 21 groups of 
small quantity generators agencies that would use common 
storage facilities. 

The proposed ordinance would authorize the Director of the 
DPH to enforce the provisions of the California Medical Waste 
Management Act of 1990. Violations of the Act and ordinance 
would be subject to Cease and Desist Orders and 
Administrative penalties of up to $1,000 per violation. 
Violations of an Order would constitute a misdemeanor and 
could be subject to civil action. Violations of storage, 
treatment, and disposal standards would vary from small 
quantity and large quantity generators. Generators violating 
these standards are subject to penalties ranging from $1,000 
for the first offense to no more than $25,000 and/or three years 
imprisonment for multiple offenses. The Director of the DPH 
would also be authorized to take emergency actions when 
necessary to protect the public health or welfare. The Director 
of the DPH could also assess liens for costs and charges 
incurred by the City for the abatement of any imminent 
danger. 

The proposed ordinance authorizes the City's Director of the 
DPH to enforce the provisions of the California Medical Waste 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

86 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 18, 1992 












Management Act of 1990. Violations of the Act and ordinance 
would be subject to Cease and Desist Orders and 
Administrative penalties of up to $1,000 per violation. 
Violations of an Order would constitute a misdemeanor and 
would be subject to a civil action. 

Violations of storage, treatment, and disposal standards 
would vary for small quantity and large quantity medical 
waste generator agencies. Medical waste generator agencies 
violating these standards would be subject to penalties 
ranging from $1,000 for the first offense to no more than 
$25,000 and/or three years imprisonment for multiple 
offenses. The Director of the DPH would also be authorized to 
take emergency actions when necessary to protect the public 
health or welfare. The Director of the DPH could also assess 
liens for costs and charges incurred by the City for the 
abatement of any imminent hazardous waste danger. 

Comments: 1. The State currently regulates the storage, treatment, 

transportation, and disposal of medical waste within the City 
and regulates private and public medical waste generator 
agencies located in the City and County of San Francisco. The 
DPH intends that the proposed ordinance would give the DPH 
control over medical waste in the City to better assure that the 
biological character of medical waste can either be isolated or 
eliminated so as to prevent medical waste from causing 
disease in humans or animals. The DPH believes that it can 
do a better job to assure the safety of medical waste in the City 
than can the State. 

2. The California Medical Waste Management Act of 1990 
authorizes local agencies, such as the City, to establish a 
medical waste regulatory program through the adoption of a 
local medical waste management ordinance. According to 
Mr. Scott Nakamura, the Hazardous Waste Project Manager 
for the DPH Bureau of Toxics, Health and Safety Services, the 
State Department of Health Services currently administers 
the regulations contained in this act and, thereby, currently 
is responsible for regulating private and public facilities 
located in the City that create, produce, or generate medical 
wastes. Mr. Nakamura states that the State Department of 
Health Services is not adequately staffed to respond to the 
City's local concerns. 

3. According to Mr. Nakamura, "the benefits of local 
implementation of the Medical Waste Management Program 
include local control over the identification and correction of 
problems related to the improper management of medical 
waste, faster response to incidents of improperly managed 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

87 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 18, 1992 



medical waste, the ability to address occupational safety and 
health issues at medical facilities, increased communication 
with medical waste generators, and coordination of local 
policies which would minimize public health concerns. The 
implementation of such a local program would also ensure 
that registration and permit fees, which would otherwise be 
submitted to the State, would stay in San Francisco." 

4. The following table lists the one-time and annual fees that 
would be charged for each type of agency and activity: 







Number 


Frequency 




One Total 




Number 


of 


of 




Annual Time First Year 


TvDe of Aaencv 


of Beds Aaencies 


Pavment 


Ess. i 


Revenue Revenue Revenue 


Larae Quantity Generator 












Hospital 


1to99 


3 


Annual 


$ 510 


$ 1,530 


Hospital 


100 to 

199 

200 to 

250 

251 plus 


1 


Annual 


765 


765 


Hospital 


1 


Annual 


1,020 


1,020 


Hospital 


12 


Annual 


1,445 


17,340 


Skilled Nursing Facility 


1to99 


14 


Annual 


255 


3,570 


Skilled Nursing Facility 


100 to 
199 

200 plus 


4 


Annual 


340 


1,360 


Skilled Nursing Facility 


1 


Annual 


425 


425 


Specialty Clinic 




31 


Annual 


595 


18,445 


Acute Psychiatric Hospital 




2 


Annual 


595 


1,190 


Intermediate Care Facility 




1 


Annual 


595 


595 


Primary Care Clinic 




12 


Annual 


595 


7,140 


Health Care Service Plan 




5 


Annual 


595 


2,975 


Licensed Clinical Laboratory 




38 


Annual 


255 


9,690 


Veterinary Offices 




6 


Annual 


255 


1,530 


Medical Office* 




46 


Annual 


255 


11,730* 


Small Quantity Generator 












On-Site Treatment 




15 


Biennial 


255 


1,913 


Off-Site Treatment 




1,600 


One-time 


75 


$120,000 


Haulers Limited Quantity Hauling 




50 


Annual 


85 


4,250 


Exemption 












Transfer Fee* 




1 






595* 


Common Storaae Facility Permits 












1 or less Agencies Served 




6 


Annual 


213 


1,278 


1 1 to 49 Agencies Served 




10 


Annual 


340 


3,400 


50 or more Agencies Served 




5 


Annual 


425 


2,125 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 18, 1992 





Number 


Number 
of 


Frequency 
of 




Annual 


One 
Time 


Total 
First Year 


Type of Aqency 

On-Site Medical Waste Treatment 

Facility 

Autoclave Treatment 


of Beds Agencies 
20 


Pavment 
Annual 


Fee 
255 


Revenue 
5,100 


Revenue 


Revenue 


Other Treatment 




1 


Annual 


340 


340 






Processing Fee (estimate 30 
hours) 








$85/Hr. 


2,550 






Totals 


$100,856 


$120,000 $220,856 



* The proposed ordinance does not currently contain full provision for these fees. 
The DPH is working with the City Attorney's Office to amend the proposed 
ordinance to include mortuaries under the definition of medical offices and to 
make provision for a transfer fee of $595 annually. The transfer fee would be 
charged to haulers operating a transfer station at which medical wastes are 
consolidated and transferred to another hauler's vehicle. 

5. The California Medical Waste Management Act allows 
counties to charge fees necessary to implement a medical 
waste management program. A comparison of the proposed 
fees for the City and County of San Francisco, the State of 
California, and five other counties that have already 
implemented medical waste management programs is 
contained in the attached schedule. 



6. Mr. Nakamura projects the annual costs for the 
implementation of the proposed Medical Waste Program to be 
$213,458. These implementation costs include personnel costs 
of $135,432 and non-personnel costs of $78,026 as follows: 

Personnel Costs 





Annual 




Classification FTE 


Salaries 




6122 Senior Environmental Health Inspector 1.0 


$ 66,240 




1446 Secretary II 1.0 


39.566 




Salary subtotal 2.0 


$105,806 




Mandatory Fringe Benefits (@ 28%) 


29.626 




Total Personnel Costs 




$135,432 


ting Costs 






Auto Mileage 


$ 1,000 




Travel 


500 




Training 


2,000 




BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 







BUDGET ANALYST 

89 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 18, 1992 



Contractual Services (Emergency 


Response) 


$22,000 




Other Current Services 




2,000 




Vehicle 




5,000 




Postage (3 mailings by registered 


mail) 


17,500 




Telephone 




1,500 




Materials and Supplies 




6,000 




Rental of Property 




5^36 




Data Processing Equipment 




7,500 




Reproduction 




6,690 




Medical Surveillance 




1.000 




Total Operating Costs 






78.026 


Total Cost 






$213,458 



7. The Senior Environmental Health Inspector position would 
determine the inventory of businesses subject to the 
ordinance, develop letters of notification, application packets, 
fact sheets, standard operating procedures, inspection forms, 
enforcement procedures, fee collection procedures, review 
medical waste management plans and informational 
documents, and conduct inspections of facilities subject to the 
ordinance. In addition, this position would conduct business 
workshops for the regulated community to assist them in 
complying with the requirements of the ordinance. The 
Senior Clerk Typist would provide clerical support for the 
program. 

8. The above annual costs for the implementation of the 
proposed Medical Waste Program include the staffing and 
operating costs associated with the processing of 
applications, development of application forms, notifications 
of permit requirements, review of applications and required 
documentation, inspection of medical waste generators, 
issuance of permits, development and distribution of fact 
sheets, newsletters, and other educational materials. 

9. The costs to implement the program would be entirely 
funded by the projected revenue of $220,856 from registration 
and permit fees. The proposed ordinance provides for an 
inspection fee of $85 per hour or each portion thereof for 
inspections and associated activities. Prior to the issuance of 
permits, medical waste generator agencies may be inspected 
by DPH staff to ensure compliance with State and City 
requirements. 

10. According to Mr. Nakamura, after the initial year of 
operation of the proposed Medical Waste Program, various 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

90 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 18, 1992 



Recommendation: 



initial costs of the Program could be eliminated or reduced. 
For example, vehicle, postage and data processing expenses 
could be reduced significantly. Mr. Nakamura estimates that 
the annual ongoing cost of the proposed Medical Waste 
Program would be approximately $30,000 less than the cost of 
the initial year of operation or $183,458. 

11. As stated above, the estimated revenues of $220,856 from 
the fees contained in the proposed ordinance would support 
the $213,458 estimated cost of the first year's operation of the 
proposed Medical Waste Program. However, the estimated 
revenues of $100,856 from the fees earned in the subsequent 
years of the Program would not support the $183,458 
estimated cost of the annual ongoing operation of the 
proposed Medical Waste Program. 

12. In order to hire the staff and expend funds to implement 
the proposed Medical Waste Program, DPH must submit a 
supplemental appropriation including the Controller's 
certification of funds available from the proposed new fees to 
appropriate the funds and an ordinance to amend the 
Annual Salary Ordinance to create the new positions. In 
addition, the collection of the proposed fees by the City would 
require the hiring of staff to perform the requisite 
inspections. The supplemental appropriation and the 
ordinance to amend the Annual Salary Ordinance should be 
companion legislation to this file since none could be 
appropriately implemented without the others. Mr. 
Nakamura has indicated to the Budget Analyst that he does 
have a plan to fund the ongoing cost of the proposed Program 
but has not finalized his plan. 

Continue the consideration of this item pending 1) the 
submission of a companion supplemental appropriation and 
an ordinance to amend the Annual Salary Ordinance, 2) the 
Department's clarification of second and subsequent years' 
funding, and 3) the revision of the proposed ordinance 
reflecting the specific intentions of the Department including 
fees for mortuaries and medical waste hauler transfer fees. 

The adoption of the proposed ordinance that would create an 
additional new program responsibility for the City including 
new fees and the need for additional staff and operational 
costs is a policy mater for the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



91 



MEDICAL WASTE FEE COMPARISON 






Attachm 


ent 




















SAN 
FRANCISCO 


SANTA 
CLARA 


ORANGE 


ALAMEDA 


MARIN 


CONTRA 
COSTA 


STATE OF 
CALIFORNIA 


LARGE QUANTITY GENERATORS 
















ACUTE CARE HOSPITALS 
















1-99 BEDS 


$510.00 


$600.00 


$722.00 


$503.00 


$600.00 


$600.00 


$600.00 


100-199 BEDS 


$765.00 


$860.00 


$938.00 


$704.00 


$860.00 


$860.00 


$860.00 


200-250 BEDS 


$1,020.00 


$1,100.00 


$1,239.00 


$1,106.00 


$1,000.00 


$1,000.00 


$1,000.00 


251 OR MORE BEDS 


$1,445.00 


$1,400.00 


$1,557.00 


$1,106.00 


$1,400.00 


$1,400.00 


$1,400.00 


















SPECIALTY CLINIC (SURGICAL, 
DIALYSIS. ETC) 


$595.00 


$350.00 


$368.00 


$503.00 


$350.00 


$350.00 


$350.00 


















ACUTE PSYCHIATRIC HOSPrTAL 


$595.00 


$200.00 


$206.00 


$503.00 


$600.00 


$200.00 


$200.00 


















INTERMEDIATE CARE FACILITY 


$595.00 


$300.00 


$336.00 


$503.00 


$300.00 


$300.00 


$300.00 


















PRIMARY CARE CLINIC 


$595.00 


$350.00 


$368.00 


$503.00 


$350.00 


$350.00 


$350.00 


















CLINICAL LABORATORY 


$255.00 


$200.00 


$213.00 


$503.00 


$200.00 


$200.00 


$200.00 


















HEALTH CARE SERVICE PLAN 
FACILITY 


$595.00 


$350.00 


$368.00 


$503.00 


NA 


$350.00 


$350.00 


















VETERINARY CUNIC OR HOSPITAL 


$255.00 


$200.00 


$368.00 


$503.00 


$200.00 


$200.00 


$200.00 


















MEDICAL/DENTAL OFFICE (200 OR 
MORE POUNDS/MONTH) 


$255.00 


$200.00 


$213.00 


$503.00 


$200.00 


$200.00 


$200.00 


















HOME HEALTH SERVICE (NURSING, 
INFUSION SERVICES, ETC) 


$255.00 


$200.00 


$213.00 


$503.00 


NA 


$200.00 


$200.00 


















FOLLOW UP INSPECTIONS, 
INVESTIGATIONS, AND 
CONSULTATIONS (HOURLY RATE) 


$85.00 


$0.00 


NA 


$67.00 


$75.00 


$80.00 


NA 


















AUTOCLAVE TREATMENT PERMIT 


$255.00 


$300.00 


$496.00 


NA 


$200.00 


NA 


NA 


INCINERATOR TREATMENT PERMIT 


$340.00 


$300.00 


$496.00 


NA 


$200.00 


NA 


NA 


















PERMIT APPLICATION REVIEW FEE 
(HOURLY RATE) 


$85.00 


$0.00 


NA 


$67.00 


$75.00 


$80.00 


NA 


















SMALL QUANTITY GENERATORS 
(LESS THAN 200 POUNDS/MONTH, 
TREAT ONSITE) 


$128.00 


$100.00 


$496.00 


$134.00 


$100.00 


$100.00 


$50.00 


















NONREGISTRANT FEE (ONE TIME) 


$75.00 


$25.00 


NA 


$0.00 


$75.00 


$25.00 


$0.00 


















LIMITED QUANTITY HAULING 
EXEMPTION 


$85.00 


$0.00 


NA 


$101.00 


$75.00 


$50.00 


$0.00 


















COMMON STORAGE FACILITY 
PERMIT FEE 
















SERVING 2-10 GENERATORS 


$213.00 


$100.00 


$105.00 | $201.00 j S1 50.00 


$100.00 


$100.00 


SERVING 11-49 GENERATORS 


$340.00 


$250.00 


$263.00 


$201.00 J $250.00 


$250.00 


$250.00 


SERVING 50 OR MORE GENERATORS 


$425.00 


$500.00 


$561.00 


$201.00 | $500.00 


$500.00 


$500.00 
















INPATIENT FACILITIES 
















1-99 BEDS 


S255.00 


$275.00 


$306.00 I $503.00 


S600.00 


$275.00 


$275.00 


100-199 BEDS 


$340.00 


$350.00 


$377.00 ! $704.00 I $860.00 


$350.00 


$350.00 


200 OR MORE BEDS 


$425.00 


$400.00 


$446.00 I $1,106.00 I $1,000.00 


$400.00 


$400.00 














TRANSFER STATION 


S595.00 


$500.00 


$561.00 | $603.00 ! NA 


$500.00 


$500.00 



92 



City Report 

CITY AND COUNTY W &r^ OF SAN FRANC I S C O 




BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

1390 MARKET STREET, SUITE 1025 

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102 • TELEPHONE (415) 554-7642 



November 18, 1992 



Honorable Jim Gonzalez, Chair 

and Members of the Finance Committee 
Board of Supervisors 
Room 235, City Hall 
San Francisco, California 94102 

Dear Supervisor Gonzalez and Members of the Finance Committee: 

Transmitted herewith is a list of revisions (Attachment I) to the Budget Analyst's 
report on the Mayor's Office of Community Development (MOCD) recommended 
budget for the 1993 Community Development (CD) Program. 

The changes are also included in the Revised Summary of Requests and 
Recommendations (Attachment II). 

As a result of these changes, the Budget Analyst is making the revised 
recommendations to approve $19,754,895 of the MOCD's proposed 1993 CDBG 
Program of $21,708,373 which includes $169,839 in contingencies.. The Budget 
Analyst is recommending that reductions be made in the amount of $159,915 from 
the MOCD's proposed 1993 CDBG Program and is making no recommendations on 
new programs and increases in existing programs totaling $1,793,563, since such 
new programs and increases in existing programs are considered to be policy 
decisions for the Board of Supervisors. Further, the Budget Analyst is 
recommending that $762,047 from the MOCDs recommended budget be approved but 
reserved. 



Honorable Jim Gonzalez, Chair 

and Members of the Finance Committee 
Board of Supervisors 
November 18, 1992 

As noted above, the 1993 CDBG program proposed by the MOCD includes $169,839 in 
contingency reserves which may be allocated to other eligible CDBG program 
activities. The previously noted Budget Analyst's recommended reductions totaling 
$159,915, if accepted by the Board of Supervisors, would initially be transferred to the 
Contingency Fund. Further the Budget Analyst has recommended a revised 
transfer of $13,273 in current and prior year unspent funds ($1,342 from New Facility 
Development, Section VI and $11,931 from Public Services, Section VIII) to 
contingencies. Therefore a total of $173,188, in addition to the MOCD proposed 
Contingency Fund of $169,839, or a total of $343,027, could be reallocated by the Board 
of Supervisors for other eligible CD activities. 

Respectfully submitted, 



^7^,/^€_ 



Harvey M. Rose 
Budget Analyst 

cc: Supervisor Migden 
Supervisor Hallinan 
President Shelley 
Supervisor Achtenberg 
Supervisor Alioto 
Supervisor Britt 
Supervisor Conroy 
Supervisor Hsieh 
Supervisor Kennedy 
Supervisor Maher 
Clerk of the Board 
Chief Administrative Officer 
Controller 
Jean Mariani 
Barbara Kolesar 
Larry Del Carlo 
Ted Dienstfrey 
Ted Lakey 



BOARD OF SU PERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

2 



Attachment I 



Revisions to the Budget Analyst's Report of 11/16/92 

on the 1993 Community Development Program as Prepared by the 

Mayor's Office of Community Development 

Page 99 - Chinatown Youth Center 

Page 105 - Domestic Relations Unit/SF Neighborhood Legal Assistance Foundation 

Page 135 - Tenderloin Housing Clinc 

Page 136 - Travelers Aid 

Page 137 - West Bay Pilipino Multi Service Corporation 

Page 139 - Young Community Developers 

Page 153 Mission Cultural Center 

Change recommendations to "Approve CDBG funding as recommended by MOCD." 

Page 119 - Mayor's Office of Children, Youth and Their Families 
Reduce recommended reserve by $13,641 from $100,000 to $86^59. 

Page 141 - Status of Unspent Funds, Public Services Program 

Decrease recommended transfer to contingencies from $60,931 to $11,931. 

Pages 168 and 170 - Homeless Services Program and Disability Access Program Pools 
Withdraw recommended reserves on these pools, $550,000 and $500,000 respectively. 

Page 176 - Disability Concerns Unit 

Decrease recommended reduction by $7,909 from $8335 to $926. 

Pages 184 and 187 - Position Upgrade from Class 9774 to Class 9775 

Withdraw recommended reduction of $8,430 and instead recommend a reserve of 

$8,430 pending classification by the Civil Service Commission. 



Attachment II 




0000©00i-0>0 
O O O t- r- CM O 

OO O 00 o <o o 
o in o co oT ^ c\J 

O CO CO CO O Tf o 

CM i- CM i- i- CO CM 



ooooooooooo 



o o 

in o 

t-" CM 



o?a 



O G 



o 8 5 i 
-S.O"- 



o w o o t; q eo q 
^" oi o" m" *- in co" •** 



$20,000 

(31,571) 

(25,000) 

3,400 


o o o o o o o 

O 10 O O O CO y- 

o* ooonm 
o" o" o o" V o" to 
to co O) co cm m co 


o 






{• 



CO 


Q 
O 


<n 


a 


o> O 


CL 


3 

m 


*~ 


5 


o 






0. 





ooooooooo 
2 55 

O CO 



o o o o 
o o o o 



m 



oin in <o 
,- o> o> oi ^ m r- 

CM »- CM i- i- CO CM 



oooooco*-o>o 

OOOO 1-i-CMO 

o o o o cqoiqo 
o'w'o'o' oo'oTt^cm 
o co co co to o ^ o 

t— f— CO CM 



CM l- CM 



O* 



OOOOOOOOOOO 



o*-ooooooooo 



° s 

o o 





o 






o 




o 


o 






CO 






CM 


</> 





>> CO 
co o a 

°> 2. 5 

^ CO m 



OOOOI^CMCOCOO 

OO O t-O to OO 

ocq owc^r^cj^o 
*f a in in" in* o a id 
O) ■* o> to to t- 

CM i- t- CO CM 



T- O 



«> 



ooooooooooo 



s 



I 



9 S 
9 2 
o o 

°"S 

O O (_, 

"> P. B 



•r-"' CM 



O) 







c 




5 




'a 






c 


8 


o 


cr 


a 


o 


00 


E 


c 


en 


E 


a 


•o 


o 


< 


ct 


co 




E 




a 








a 




o 








ct 




cr 




c 




en 




3 




O 




X 




— 



i li- 



lt 

o 



£ 1 ° 



TO 



(T> 



i ° 

i S 
,9 ts 



o>< 



Q. tO 

o CO 

o > 



x 9- 52 



.5 

„ CO 

1 S 

Q_ CD 

a) 

5 4 

of 

01 o0 



l» 
E CD 

E Q 

ft 

® 3 

to c 

CD t 

C E 



3 3 
O O 
O O I X 



c o o 

ill 

§ 5 | 

| Q 2 

Q.T3 2> 

o o o 

•S 2 CO o OI 
O .O C 

g-fl 

- 1 - J3 TO 
O CO o 
"to "D J3 



!=! CD 

re E 

£ °- 

a> o 

CO CD 

c > 

O CD 

O D 

GO CT> 

_C C 
to 



~ £ 



to » u 

3 CD CD 

o o 

1 CD £ 3 
CO ~ CD O 

EC ff\ to 

- CD W CD 

o g>tr 

2> 3 



35 8 



f ™ 

u3 •§ 

• c 
£ to 



jo £ 
to to 
< O 



5 to 5 > 

>k c: c 

3. t? CD co 

Sail 

1 1 8.8. 

re E <g eg 

O O T3 T3 
O O S S 



O "** 

•5-26 

S $ 8 

x o S 

co £ o 

> co £ 

S « 2 

Sre 



01 TO — - 



SJj </5 



c a 
— co 

4f§ 

feoo 

CD to CD 
5-JD TO 

i i s 

i -gs 

CD CD ,n 
03 H W 



~ 


a 


CO 




-3 


o E 


5 


o <o 


CO 
CD 

cc 


c o 


5cl 


en 


jo oi 




3 C 


to 

3 


8"! 


O 

X 


* ° 
2 x 

«3 ^ 


c 


™ TO 


3 


C3> «2S 


E 
E 


c O 



Sl« > 



o <t> 

a? 
S Q- 

CD CD 
C CD 

co -21- 

£-° 

T3 CD 

II 
». to 
o CO 



a 


"» 


T3 


00 


c 


co" 


CD 


«} 


E 




E 


c5 


o 




o 


to 


CD 


•o 




c 


o 


CD 


c 


E 


CO 
CD 


E 


CO 


8 


E 


CD 


to 


t) 


>> 


>. 


CO 


(0 


c 


c 


< 


< 






CD 


CD 


cn 


cn 


•o 


■D 


3 


3 


CD 


m 



CM CM CM CM 



2^ 



<5 



>»S 



o E 



O O t- o o o 



oooooooooooooooooooo 






o y o 



00000)000 
O 09- C O O 

lO o ©_ o 

isT 5 in o" 

8 J K 



Sooomooooooooooooooo 

w oioocmooooooooooo ooo 

o cm 01 o_ o_ o_ in o_ o o_ o_ o m o_ o o o_ o_ 

(O r-" ^* o" o" o" O W 6" (O o" o" n o" o" o" o" o" 

g.'o c 2."i "'".""^ <D "2."£. c 2."*'"~'"""l , o*-o 



oomooooo 
o O CO o o o o 
00)0 0'* o 

w" of in n o" t-* rf 
i- cm 3.co_m jo. 



co 

O) 


O 
O 


1 

O 




o> O 


Q. 


3 
CD 


"~ 


s 


O 






a. 





si 

CD 



o o 

inq o_ o_ o_ o_ 

so o" co" r-T o" 

co <o m «o •* I s - 



oooot-ooo 
<fy o o co o o 
o_ o c» o_ o 
o" ©" S si 8 



CM O) *- 



ooooooooooooooooooo 
m oooo oo oo 

cm o_ o_ o_ o_ o o m °. °. 

*-" o" o" cm" o" do o* o" 

W O OlDli) ■>* O t-O 



ooomooooooooooooooo 



CO ■* t- 



o o o o o o © 
o o o 

o o o 

CO* O" <£>" 

cm m •* 



o in o o o o o 



>> 91 

o o 

01 £, c 



OCOOO'-O^-O 

mcM©ocoof»o 

n in q o s o q w 

o" co* in o" co" co co" CO 

co o m o s in r- 

CM CM ^ «M t- 



o CO 



si 

a> CO 

£ t; 



ooooinoooooooooooooo 
O KOOO ooooo 

in cmooo ooooo 



» " 



CM •* 



OOOOOOO i 

CO OOOO i_ 



ID O (O O 



< =i 



^3 E 

Li- — ' 2- 

co 52. 5> 

rr-r • 2 

O co jr _^o_ 

o £ 2 £^z; 

£ ° I 2 *" 



£ - =■-£ 



8<S=> ill 



5 -8 
II 



d 

i li 

"EMC 

o> 2 c © 

c q_ o -n 

co £ O u_ 

: | • 8 8 

I o « » 
a> 5 o o 

£ CO to to 
> 2 it it 
9 x> c c 



■c co c 

30i 



a u in 

S § o Q 
Jit | |l 

■g co .. 

C Tr CO 
(0 o S 

it < 2 

CS2 £ 



9 3 to to ro 

.£ 0_ CO CO CO > w > 







CO 




to 


o 






o 




m 

CO 

sz 


& 






ct 




C 






> 




o 

S" c 


i§ 






S" 




CO o 

CO ^ 


cSE 




CO 


3 
E 

E 
3 
< 

Q-0. 
-c < 

£ O 

CO ' — ' 
C CO 

C o 

to c 

0_ « 

g"! 




i: to 
fO T3 


E co 




u 


2 


Free Clinics (940 Haight ! 
Bay/Comm Hospice Foun 
ependent People 


^raco 


2 

c 
<r 
O 


CD 

co 

c 

9 

•1 

•H « 

10 (0 

i: <» 
a. c 

CO CO 


CD 

o 

CD 

o 
o 

CO 
CD 

cr 
>. 

E 
ra 

LL 

c 


■ced Ingleside (OMI) P 
n Aging of Mt. Zion He 
Black Coalition on AID 




ll 
ll 


o ^ 


ra 


~r co "5 


anview Mei 
. Institute o 
Francisco 


C 
p 

a 


If 

c S 

E < 

E >. 


CO 

E 
ro 
00 


|ht Ashbu 
pice by th 
sing for Ir 


e 


C CO 


o 


i!' v> D 


co u. c 


D 


CO .c 


o to 


o 


to o o 


O . to 


CO 


OOOOOXIIOCOCO 



?. > 



o 5 



2 o 



CO s ^ 

S to 2 

> o co 

CO 2 W 
CO O CO 

111 

I 15 



to 0. ^-E 5 9- 



fj 

si 9 



o o 



i E 

CO Q. 

CD o 

X "5 

i i 

"S ?" 



8 8 



£ = 



■5 "t" S >> = 

CD > CO £- O 

I JW c a 
"c*u. 



3 8-5 

• of 

i: _l T3 

■U it c 
cf m 



O) X ~ ~ ^ 



c c = — ., 

to fO CD CD ~ 



T3 CO CD 



11 

co J3 

CD 3 

5 CO 



= c: 



co 

o*» 

s|| 

CO x 3 
• ■S° 
SO* 
W 08 < 

£ 9 c 
o >• CO 

2-co^ 

S u. | 



Ek 

CO o ® 

S O) £ 

2 i"^ 



528 
CO CO v 



cd "> a, 



ffltt S 

_. _to JC 



S o 



=6 c < £ 

y c5 c S" 

O £ -c x 

" => "? *t 

a. o < "6" 

o b 



£ CO 



S 6* 



o o 5 2 



o t: = £ c 



"= £ 

_ to *0 _ 

><cocomoooo 



~ c 
n o 

g -S 

a E 
SB 



i| 

Ef 
< 






i- CM 



o o o o o o 



oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo 
OU) o oo o oo oooo ooo oooooo 

55 o o_ o_ o_ o_ £3 o o o in o_ o_ o_ ooo o_ o_ o 

n"t-" o cm •*»•" m" on o * d «" id" d oi o cm o o in in* 



CO CO 



CO ■* IO 



CO m CM ■* t- CM 



O o_ iqqqq 
o'o"soi"ino" 

m to it (Din rf 



& g • i 



ooooo"ooo"oooooooooooooio5oooo"oooooo*oooooooo"o 
^^^^*-*^^x<~**-* ■« ^* ^ o o o o o r^ o o o o o o o o o m ooooo oo 

o o o K o o o 



o o o o *_» 

ooooooooooo 

oo^omooo_ooo_ 

n" n" d o" a" o" in w * d in 

C0CMOJ,C0^C0_t-^,C0<O^,C0 



oooo 

O O O IO 



us io id o> t-" o" o>" 



*— * ^ O CM 
t- CM "T CM CM £.£.co_— ' -«t in 



o o_ o_ o o_ o_ "^ o o in o o o o 
o in o* o in in en io" d n d m" o © 
cm. cm^i-cmj^ in co •»»■ <o in zz. w 






si 

m 



o u e 

°> 5. C" 



oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo 
o o o oo o oo oooo ooo oooooo oooooo o 

oo o oo o oo o_o_o_in o o_ o oo^oooo o o to o o o o 

cm co* ©" cm ^" in" o cm ©"•*!•" o" cm cd o" o> o cm* o ©" in" in co o" r-* of in" o 

t-cm io oio s nn oi^moi co 'i- in 



co in cm ^r i- cm 



ioic t<om ^ 



ooooooooooooooooooooooomoooooooooooooooooooo 
ooooo ooom o oooSo oo in o ooo 

o o o CM o o_ o_ o_ S o_ o o_ i- o ooo 

©" o" o" r«* o" w" m" in" of m" or-" of o ooo" 

"ff "r w *- •* coincoco m ■«* *- co •*^-m 

«o 



CM CO CO •* *- 



OOOOOOOOOOOinOOOTt-<DOOOOOOOOOOO'<tC0Of^C0OOO'r-OOCMOOOO 

o on to^oooomooo o oooo«omr~o>'-cM or>»oo^-oo o 

CM t^ CM COOOOCO'»1-CMOOO_ O OWCOONO MS* ffl CM CO O^ O CO O O O 

■♦" »■* r-* K t-' io d in" s" in" in rC co" »- o o" co" r>" id oo" cd of <o* o" •«* cm w" cf of 

co ■<t<ocMcoinincMt^'-CM oi in oi ioid io in o> 



in o 
cm co 
i-" h* 
h- CM 



"W ^ — T - I"* ^ — »iy MS UJ |-* 

eoi-noino^iON 



c »c 12.-? 



.c c 



5.1 o 



-*£"* 

. co © 
o 2 -fc 
Q « CO 



-• 2 to 

co n 

CO o 



I CO 



o r 



.* « = 



to eg 
it o 



S §.€■£/§ 



s:s. <«!£-& 






■S co 

S. 2 

o o "fr a -2 -r? 8 

2 2 £ co to E E 

- 2 E 



_ to co _ 
o r £ x: 
OOOO 



X X 

"2 "2 
(0 <o 



oooo 



O O "c 

§ §00 = 
E x £>0 

ills 

55 S 1 c 

to = O- <o 

|| 8* 

| oil 



±=0 

o -g 

^ O 3 

£>0 

CO CO O 



S 20° xd--* 



£ co 
co£ fr 
ra cm O 



c CO ».-« ^y u_ ^^ 



= ^J _o _o c 5 

x § £ ^ ~- c 

1053 

I s c 

I CO CO c 

■A-O co 
■ u - - N 



-"3 S 8 § 

S^"o8 ®-o| 

D C — L-* (0 X 



E-2 



£ 3 ? X 
~ co ■£ 

o o 5 g 

o «0 0) 3 

co c c c 
o-g-S = 



3 3 2 E g 

^5 J3 jO <0 2 



O 3 J CJ 



a s -s 



<<<| 



^) ^) 

CO (0 
X X 



*= = o 

■sll 
XXX 



P 5 

l l 
3 n 
co o 



O v> v> 

S £. £ 
o c c 

O CD CD 

> o o 

IS? 

n o 
* ■£ -E 

g 1 o o 

CO _q _o 

(fl CD CD CD CD 



c c c c c c 



to n to n to oi 



f" ■? -Q — I 

S n 2 e -o 
00 = 



c0 S -E 



-g -S CD t: CO 



> 5 2 



52">">->->">5zq-q: 



n 
■o ,2 « 

-J! 
0.00 g 

™ T3 CD 

c m >• 

« CO c 

c ® ^ E 

Q.O <D O — 

° ^ c c n* 
? ® cd n o 

Q o o gco 

Illfl 

^3 o co co b 
CD CD o 3 n 
X X X X CO 



1- *- CM 



CM CM CO CO 

<D ID CD ID 



* in in in co io 

ID ID (D ID (D ID 



ID S S N CO CO 
CO CD CO CO CO CO 



CO o 

a « 

c ? 

^ CD 

S E 



2^ 



< 2 






co co p 
co co to 



to co o o_ o 
^t ■* to" o" o" 

*- ■* ■* to 



oooo'ooo'oooo'ooooo'ooo'ooooooo 

OOOO OOO OOOO OOOOOlOOoO o 



oooo~ooo o o o o o o o o o to w 

oo_ooinco_oo o_ 



OOO 

of o" o" 



lOOdl CM O 



O CO co o_ 
to" CO co to" 



to" o>" o" to •*" 5" to" to" o" co" 



co 



O 


3 




8 
a 


o> O 


Q. 


■0 




S 


O 


m 



00000000000000000000000000 

© o pop OOO OIOOOO 



CO co, p_ 
CO co to" 



o o_ o 
10* o>* o" 



ion qq q 



35 "° 
CO 



00000000000000000000000000 



OOqOOOOOt-OOOCOOO 



o o S^o 00000000 



OOOOOOOI-OOOCOOO 



OOOOOO»-OOOC0OO 
O OOOtO CM 

«D O O tO_ r-_ CO 

o o *^ co" cm 



co 



mows 



co o a 

<* ™ 5 



ooooooococooo 

uoiaoin * 

Or-lfl^f 



to to CO <o 1- 
00 ^ CM 1- OJ 



CO . 

o> <5 

c 

n" • 

c to 

1 "c 

E CD 

|2 

2 ^ 

Io 

«- UJ 



cm r^ co 

a> r; t- 

•* co" |C 

O CO to 



TtOOOOOlO'-OOOOO 



tO O O CM t 
CM CM to IO_ O •* tO_ 

CO CO t^ CO co to" to" 

■* T- tO * Tf 



CM CO O O IO CM 

b o w * s s 

t^ o> to" 0>" 1-* co" 

r» co h- to 1- 



j o_ u> p •* 

_r o" 1-" -r^ •* to'i-^co^" 

j? co co co •»*••<* rv co 



o r- o> h- 

t- »- CO 1- *- 



^ a> o 

-2 a> <n 

§ & ~ 

> co co 

< -D -D 

■o c c 

c o o 

J E E 

^tr x 



: ,_ "- 1 CD 

I £ o c 

I C O CO 

L CD -C O 

IsJ 

a> c o 

: 5 z> 5 



CO 



£ 8 



^2< 

CD ' — ' -O 

i ^-8 

<D CD S 

to -Jr. r- 

O 3 Cf) t 

T" « CD O 

„ Q «? .= CD 

CCCCCOCOO-^ 
CO(OtOcfl(0"L_orO(n 
C oSCD 
• CD 

»-: .-: co jo 
MtOhh 



0) CD CD CD ^> 

<J C C C <» 

^r . CO CD CD CO ® 



a> o _ £ ^ O 

— co . •— 

m co « 

s c -° 

O 3 CO 



c 


6 


CO 


c 







£ 


P 

CO 


c 
3 

E 


cS 


E 


^c 





m 


O 


CD 



o o 

2-2- 






O £ 5 



-~^I 



CD co 



CO 



E E 
E E 



m > 
to <3 



-c o o o "C co 

"OOO CD = 



E£ 
o < ■ 



■fa i= c c 
W W ® co 

1>?.^E 

co co c m 

E 



^ ™ o " 

wm § g 

co g m m 

5 c -= c 

O to ™ o 

CO 3 CD ^ 

co m o 5 






CD 2 c c c 

-> S o o o 



O 3 3 3 O 



c c c c c 



^" ST U) 
CL > CD 



O O < 

I X CD CO 

c S "c 

a *- w w CD «) CO 

2 2 ™ 325Pu! E 

CO CO 

> > 



t O y o v co 

9 J2 ^ S ^ .« u. 

W O O O O <J rji 

to c c c c c "' 

- c CO CO CO CO co g 

® it it iir 

2 c c c 

g W W W w 

CD 



a a " r ® 



>>5$?5§5 



000 
.2 < < < 
-"000 
5 2 2 5 

>- > > 



- CL 
< • 
3 -£ 



O CO > 



Q CD CO 



CO 



S1^ 
S I 2 o 

2 CO CD o 

B O "C ^ 

00 3 » -o 

„ T) I S 



2 o 

s 
to 

^5 



(A 7 



c E 



CD O 

"5 Q 

Q m o 

CD ^^ 

til 

E £ X 
o 3 .. 

C c Q 

— ° c 

ill 

O g O 
' U. X 



w o o "* — "- J - 

CD ■= ^- ^ C t* J* 



09 CC 3 CO Q 



co c 3 .• £ 



CO o 

X g 



■c £ 5 £ "is 



> CD CO CD CD 



E" to" m C C C C 



co g»5 S E 



gen 



>- CO -i 

< -I > 



"5= CD c c c 



a e 

< < < 



c _<o _<o 

< < < 



3 CO 
< CD 



u 

CO CO 

cd m 



c c c 

3 3 3 

XXX 
? ? 5 

I'll 

co co co 



cm co co co tf 
r^ r^ r-— r-— r — 



>«-.5 



o E 
S»E 



2^ 



la 



oocM«ooocoi-ooco<or'^oo«>f~**ooooooooo>oo<oo 

«/» 0)CM O Q> h» IDt-OOOSNV" 

rflO om 



O O O CO O 



oooootooo 



_5§ 

O i- o 



CM <M CM ■* CM 



2 I 



« 
at 

£ 
b 

c 


01) 

§ 

Q 


CM 

O) 
O) 

> 
O 


C 

'■5 

c 

3 
LL 



o"oooooot-oooocooo<oooooooooooc»ooooooooo 

O Of<- »- CM O CO OOOO 



o o 
IO o" 



i- O CM O 



I o ° 

2 2 

oo o 



CO 

O) 


Q 
O 


3 

m 
O 


u 


o> O 


Q. 


3 

m 


*■ 


s 


O 






CL 





-.OCMCOOOOpi-OO 

S o> cm o o> r» 

*» •t- O O OU) 

OO" ^ o" CO -r-^ 

»- to « in o 



<o o o o co r»» 



i-ooor-iM^oooo 

't1-_0_0_0_<00>CMO_0_0_0_ 

* U) w" o" n o" s o" in o" uf 



OOOOOOOOOIOOCOOOOOOOOCOOO 



o o o <o o 

°. f"! °. "P. °. 

o* (o in i-" o" 



58 

o i- o 



mCMincOCOtOinCMCOCM CM CM CM ^ CM 



i- O CM O 



s-s 



>• 01 

B U « 

°> £, ff 

^ O) m 



o "' JS 

S 55 



COi-COOOinCM? 

**OIOOt-_ONO 

ooco»^'cMo"t^'o"r-"o" 
CM^FcocMincococom 



-.oocooo^wino^cooooor^ooincMOooooooocoocooooococoQ 

SoOCMOOi-COCMOini-OOOOCMOOOCOWOOtOOCMOOCOOTfOOO ^wo 

V* *~i *r\ m r\ e~* er\ rf\ m r** c^ ^* tr* r*t t~t **■ rr* n cs ** ~- *^ i~s rrt t~\ t~* t\i r^ tr\ rr\ r~* tr\ r^ /~i /—> /rini 



^«— ' ^^ 1<I \-* V— ' ■» VV *-M ' — ' 

o_ in o q q oo <o_ eo q 
o" <o" t-" o" o" o" «5 
n o ID n n <o n 



CMOini-OOOOCMOOO)COinOO«OOCMOOCOOTfOOO 

«o_CM^«qo_o_Ttc»o_o_Tfr^ts i ©_cq©_©_cMO_oqcqc3«o_o_o_o_ 

N w V ep o o" o" o> o" ^-" o" o" CO T-* n" o" o" o" K in S t-' o" m" to" o" in 
<ococo^<ocoin^nsN^O)cococMocoScoo)ioooi"tior) 

CM i- 



00 CO o o o o 

<o" r-" co" o" o" o" 

CM tO CM CM CO (O 




co >- 

o o 



|§ CO <D 

O O O 



CO 


CO 


sz 


J= 


O O 


_o 


o 


"o 


o 


.c 


.c 






CO 


ra 


O O 



Tj-intor^mmm 0,- ' ,-c>JCVJ co ^ ^fr to to 

fflSS»SScS°2°°2 2 ° °. ° ° 



><:p 



o E 
■S>E 



2^ 



ii 



"Sac 1 

s I'-s 
o g § i 
-9.0"- 



o o o o o o o 

IQ O O -f o o 

^r o o ■* o o 

dinon to" oo* 

CO CD O) ^ CM IO 



ONO 
CM <o* 
to 03 



o o o to coocoooooouooooooooooooocmooooooo 

ooootp cm coocoooN ^ oo ooo oon m oo 

■'o ^ to oimsi-om co 

8"fc" | 



CO 1- T- -r- ■* O 

CM CM *- CM *- 



co o 


OOO 


O O CO 


f~ 


o to 


CM O 
CM IO 


o to to 
CO CO to 


NOS 
CO CM 03 


CO 


O CM 

tO T- 



of^ooo'oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo' 
tocoooooo too 



c» o 
o to o 



s 



18 Iff 



o o o o o o o 

O O O O CD O 



IO CO to CM 03 O 
CM IO CM IO 03 CO 



OOOOCOWOOOTOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOCMOOOOOOO 

O O 

o uo 

o" CM 

CM CM t- CM t- 



CO o CO o o h» 

o> to h» i- o to 


CO 


o o 

00 o 


ooo 
ooo 


o o ■* 
O O 00 


i- 00 CO ■* o <o 

Ot-t-t-^O 


CO 
CM 


CM O 
CM IO 


O IO IO 
CO co to 


NOS 
CO CM 03 



si 

m 






COOOOOOOOOOUOOOOOCOOTOOWOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOCMOOOOOOO 

■S 5" 



OOO 

ooo 


O CO 
O CM 


03 O CM 

•* o to 


CO O CO o o 1^ 

O) to h- *- o to 


o to 00 
CM CM IO 


CM 03 
IO 03 


fcSS 


I- 00 00 ^ O 03 

CO 1- T- T- *t O 



CM CM i- CM t- 



o o 
00 o 


OOO 
OOO 


o o -<t 
o o 00 


CM O 
CM IO 


o to to 
CO CO uo 


(MON 
CO CM 03 



O O i 



O 

•"toooocooouooocoooor^-oo c 



-locMcp inffl'-ososoiDi-oioooNouiiooi'-ooinifli-inoNoinooooNioN 

"t- t- .-CJCJt-N^i- t- CM 



0> 01 

e n 




»- CM CM CO 't'tinUllDMDtOO 



— c 

01 O 

c -S 

< c 
~ • 
o E 
2>E 



2^ 






ooooooooo 

«J O O CO o 

o o co o 



oooooooooooo 
in o oo o co o o 

TflO PP. P. *1 P. P. 

|C co" co" O O S IO O 

CO ■* COCO IflSN •»- 



o o o o 



•^ 1- -r- CO 



oooooooo 



« 8 S § 



00)000000000000000001000 

widoooo o in o or*. 

CO O O CO O^ CO oco 



t0mm 






o 


o 


o 


in 




o 


o 




r~- 








CJ 




CJ 


£i 




to 









£i •at 



oooooooo 
o o o o o o o 
o o_ p_ O O O O 
in o" in in eg co" in 

•- C\J T- * -r- *— *& 



sfi 



o> o 0.2, 

*z j- m 



oooooooooooooooooooo 
o o co o o in o oo 

o o co o o ■* co P. P 

co" oo" o in in r» co" co" o 

ii-m ■<* coco'* coco 



o co o 

O t- O 



o o o o 
o in o o 
o ■* p_ r-. 
cJ co" in c\J 
O) O) r* co 



o> "2 



oiooooooooooooooooomoo 



o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


in 


o 


o 


co" 


o" 


in 


o" 


O) 


CJ 


r^ 


r^ 


<& 


CJ 




co 



oooooooo 



oooooooo ~ 



32 



01 £ 






cog 



°. °. n . '". w . f". *. °. *. *". °. n . °. *. °. °. ". *. ®. °. 
o" co" r~ co" cj" cj in" co r-T ^ o>" o>" o co" o" o" en" ■*" co" m" 

Oi-aioNNiMcococooooiionnoocc^oin 



co 


o 


o 


_ 


in 


in 


o 


in 


o 


o_ 


C-- 


in 


en 




co" 


cj" 


Tt 


CO 




CD 


CJ 


CJ 


CJ 


* 



oooooooo ._ 



OJE 

E 



o u- CO 

CO o c CO 

° § o I 8 

o ^2 Q. a, <d o 



s»ts 



m -~ P ? 



CD U- 'F 

.9. - « 

CD 

CO 



c -c?W 

2 co oa 

. E 2 c 

» o UJ § 

> co :t= 
8*s 



co co co co 

o o o o 

c c c c 

CO CO CO CO 



e c c ez 



2-o 



en co 

O CO 

cog 1 -! 

-5 O- 2 io 

-S I a. -i 

£ H £ S 

8 m -c t> 

C CO O T3 

** O Q. O 

*J 3 3 3 

co co co co 



co .2 .2 
CO c c 

5-1 £ 

!? "5 H 

tr 

"See 

— O. 2 2 



g&O 



_c p. 



c £ o o o 



m co 



CO i 

He 

O CD 

If 

CD CD 

o > 



E it 



= — CD CD 



CO O 

£ 5 £•£•£ 

co ? •= 7= CO 
BO § |« 

X v, E E 2 

-^ Q. O O co 

50 >< >>"55 

"° "2 2 ra > 
§ ^ 5>^> 2 

hhi- 



2 



E 



2 03 

c — 

3 CO 



> o 

I? 



Q CO 

fcD^ 

con 

pi 

o o2 



ri ri <B =?: 



hh>>?5>- 



O <9 
Q ^ 

yj % 

c — § 

« 5 Q 

52 »a 

8 8. CD- 

<o S- c c 

< o c 2 

- O c E 

£ — <° o- 

i £E -§ 

Q.E"? 

© o o a 

3; °> c ,. 

Q co o c 

oQUJg 

illl 

-- o c "te 2 
j <o CO 2 J3 

- -9 ■ ,5 



z 00 
> ™ 



X 6 



CD 

i 8 

2 id 

2 O £ 
S £ »r 

- 3 2 

■ c 5 

CO 5 O 



E 1. 



-2 m 



Ix 



3 I 2 
05 : 

« § o 

5E? 
co E E 
-c o S 

t°-i 

o 2 — 



£ S 

.1 i 



■Q O) <D 



•oca 

c re rr 



o 2 
"8»o 

2 2 I 

si § 

eg 3 o 

CD U UJ 



SS429.E {?8 



060 £ £ 



~ re re 

LL -3 _l 



CD " 

re .<2 



CO — i 

E S 
2 ^ 

g> CD 

2 g> 

O CO 

CD 

C T3 

II 

3 CD 
*~ <0 

o £ 

S5 

.9 °o 

Is 
|8 

E 2 

o ^ 

£ T3 

si 

i§ 8 

E £ 

M «> 
>> >» 

2 <o 

!< 

o> en 

f = 

CQ CO 
2 CD 



2 5 5 



•t ■* * ■* 



in 



2^ 

'Is 



c "2 

© E 
SE 



m 



_ CD »- O O 

Swf fc in 

°on cm a 



o tj 



Is 



oooooooooo 



o o_ in o_ o o 
w * co" in o" o> 

f- 0) CO CO CD "tf 



CO o o o 


8 


o o 
o o 




o" o" 


CD 


o o 


</> 


m m 



O fv. ,- O CO o o 

O CO O O ^ U} o 

0^ CB i^ O ^t CO o 

B in co o" o" o" o" 

f CO CM O *- CM o 

««• *- 1- 1- »- 



s « S ? 

S« r TJ 

« 8 § § 



oooooooooo 

«/» oooo ooo 

oooo o o o_ 

o" n o" in o* o* in" 
S.C~£2. — Si.*"" 



o o o o o o 



r-~ 


o o 


o 


CD 


o 


o 


CD 


o 


o 


co" 


o" 


o" 


i 


in 


o 
m 



O CM If) O O) O O 
IOO — CM O 
CM If) O CO 

If)" *"" *-" t»" 





■a 


en O 


S 5 


o> O 


°- ^ 


■" £ 


w CD 




Q. 



OOOOOOOOOO 



cr> o 
If)* g CO* o" 
CO ~ CO If) 



_ o o o 




g o o o 


o 


g o o o 


o 


^ o" o" o" 




gj 18 10 io 


o 


<^ 


5> 



o 






o 




oooooooooo 




<y» oooo ooo 


hi 


-I 

O) "° 


oooo ooo 


cc 


o"no"»' O O If) 


Q 


■* *- CM CO CM CM ■* 


2 


t- 3 




< 


a 




CO 






t- 






co 







o o o o o o 



>> Cfl 

co o a 

01 5" =, 

T- O) ffi 

< tr 



(OOOOOOOOOO 



CM O 

CO o 

r-.* o' 

■>* o 



o o o *»■ If) o 

, o o o CO ■* o 

iqqqBoq 
„ in o o" m" <-" of 
oiicoiflinflioit 



-*-<P 



O CO CM O CO O O 

O CO •* O r- o o 

0_ CD ^ 0_ S ffl O 

O* CO O) O* S N O 

CM CO CO O CO CM O 

«» t- i- CM i- 
CM 



o if) r~ o o» o o 

•»* co t o co o o 
Sn voooo 

V N Ol" O" CO O* O 



CO If) o O CO CO o 

CMCO N O S N O 

•* q co q q cm_ o 
oT r-" en o" co* m" o" 
« a Aon ~f o 

«/» t- ■r- CO i- 

CM* 




en a 



ECC 



co co c 
"<o ex co 
< E •" 



£ • oc 8 c £ 



<0 CO 

111 

1 E E 

co <D 111 n 
3 £ _ CD 

m r -5 o 

o -9 W £ 

h «- • 

~= c o co 

2 >, CO ■ 



|Iw 8 § 

co W -c « " 

CD •_ CD O 



% CD 



CD 2MJ_ 

c«c 



E £ 2 

m c c ~= 

co o M u 

C O V CO 

CD ^. CO CD 

u. o> o 3 

co j- 5 5 




S £t 



7«5 



E 



CO •"- 

Q °- 

= Q 

c ~-~ 

3 Ol 

E S 

II 



So 



c 42 c 

3 E ° 

« E° 

C o "D 

o « ™ 

s o si ti 

O ct> o 

5 ™ * 

■« S E £ 

Q X S 



o> "" 
11 

O CO 



J §■«- g 
"5 Q x> oi 

8 8<| 
^ a o U ® - 

« ra c 2 

- *_ CO o 

§."* fe s 

n" c -° 3 

Icoco ^ 



E T3 

co co 

S" ^ 

o co 

i- co 
2 ic 

if ffi 00 
£ -o "~ 

^8 !• 
«£ g. 

- E a> 
2 co 9 

CD w CO 
CO Q) — 

5 9 *° 
2 a* 5 
5 _ c 

- J § . 
o C £ en 

» ; o2 

CO • - 

ST2 „ 

Q. (0 i: CO 

5 N CO CD 
CO •= CO 

ID T £ 

c i E "O 

??3 I 

.9 cd < £ 
§ ? O £ 

1 1 Qs 

£ o 5 x. 
gS og 

1 8 o 1 



en 



^ CO 



<o 



ill* 

O co cq -o 
CD -Q T> "J 

^ c £ °> 

O CD CD c 

C E E I 

- 1 SI 

8 8 g 



CO 






„ ♦. •; CO 

■ s S2. >< 
-^- -sT* 

W « 5 C 

^ ^ »r CD 
CO CD CO cj) 
0)0)01-0 
TO X> ~3 3 
3 3 3 m 

mm" 3 ,, 

CD CD J> ^ 



M IOO o 
IO CO ID N 



f if) CD CO CD CO O) 

r^ r» r~- r^ r^ co co 



ELL 



< g 

~ £ o 






m 



2^ 

II 

p oc 



<o »- II 



II 



ffi = 3 

< 



o o o o o o 



I I 



ooooooooooooooo 



</>ooooooo 



ssr-inwinoi 
inoio--Ni-i- 



o o 
o o o 

<D* O* O* 



5 • 2 2 
s g *~ -a 
« 8 § § 

-9.0"- 



ooooooooooooo 
o ooo ooooooo 
o o in o ooooooo 

in* co" c\f in n in o" oi" w" d 

y- i- i- »- CM t- CO •■- CO 

</» -^ — -^ 



ooooooooooooo 
ooo ooo oooo 
. o_ o_ o_ o o_ o o_ o_ o_ o 
<o" oo" o* o" o" ob" <o" o" o* o" 

cm cm m won o)o kin 

m cm i- cm 



CM_ 10, wo n 



cr> 


O 


1 

en 
O 


S 
n 


O) 


O 


Q. 


TJ 




2 


O 


3 

m 



>» 0> 
CO O ffl 

oi Jo- 

^ O) ffi 



o o 

in m" 



oooooooooo 
o oooooo o 



t- co i- cm cm t- in 



oooooooooo 



CM y- y- 



ooooooooo 
o o o o o c~. o 
00 o o o o_ •**• o_ 
d> in in o" o* •<* ©" 
cm co i- oo m cm w 



oooooooooooooo 



ooooooo 



r~ r~ *- m cm m o> 

n a o i- pi t- i- 



o o o o o 

o o o o o 

o" o" <o" ©* ©" 

CO O O) " 



$? 



-? in 



OOOOOOOOOOOOOO 
OOOOOOOOOOOO o 

oooooooooooo o 

o" o" o* o" o* o" ©" ©" co" o" o" o" o* 

TtO'^OCMlO^-OdOOlO h- 



OOOOOOOOOOOOOO 

ooooooo ooooo 

O o_ o_ o_ o_ o_ o_ o_ o_ o_ o o_ 

in ^' n o" o" o" o" o" o" to* o" o" 

f» r-. f- m cm m o> «o o o> m in 

inoinT-w^r- ooiot r- 

"*' |C »-* Cm" 



'Jo 



<0 y- II 



Si 



"5 

E ■ 
2 M 
0)75 
o c 

££ 
"2 5 

-" c £■£■ 

5 3 c c 
o « t fc 

i p. e E 

ra .c o o 



2 O 

c — 
HI c 



ra — o 
_l £ Sg, 

Sag 

o .c 2 



S" S 



E _ 

o x 
en "? 



c| T. 

e <H _ != 

S &| gL 

oio « a 



E S 



o > .2 



JC > 

O CD 

go 

■fc o» 
3 c 

O ■ 

*I 

i.i 

E 2 

Si 



"""J?™ 

m » "O 
CO* § 

-£"§£ 

c o„ 



ra 



W i TO 

O $ 5 

c 5 - 

fc > o 

a> c _ 

.c ro £ 

r a> 3 
ooo 

Z O CO 



as o a> 

■*" £ ° 
SJSo 

o m E 
L ■ a 
o< g 

"Dec 

I TO-e 

W I- 3 



o « 
E ra 



?°- 5 



E S 

O 3 

*?: w 



I 3 



E 
a 

oS 
o 

o 

m 

Q 
O 



S a> ■ 
2 o c 

E S -S a> 
"^-'S-^ o 



_ o 0) 5- 



P > = ° 

c o> 0. c 

— qc — a> 

E p5" 

OI U *> D 

O C T. 3 

? ra o CD 

u. j: ra 

-• c 5-fi 

> ra o o 

X CO w > 



|i s 

C. c c 

_ _0 v> 

lIS 

*?5o. 

i _ a) 

I lg( 
i S *? « 

i Oi a 

ill! 

: § o o 
i i co to 



<n c Q. 



i5S-l 



JE = M TO 

~ ro 3 c 



. § 51 

» E E w 

■n i- to c 

30J£» 

s-s I g 

S « - x 

^ m o oo 



CO «' 

3><-§ m _icococ ^o) 



O <o o 



wScoss 



t3 



£ ro c c c 
c c c c 



QQ 5jc«J2iS 2 



E 2 

T3 O 
< I- 



o> O) 

P 1 
« °- 

g> a, 
O <» 

s. 

II 

■ a> 

X CO 

to a> 



2 *> 
2 c 
S 2 

|5 
5 I 

e 2 

ra £ 

o>2 
o a. 

&■§ 
* i 

£ 0> 

II 
o o 



o o 



E .5 
E£ 
8^? 



II 

TO O 

J£ o 
ra a> 

E *: 

^^ c/> 
«) >. 
>-ra 
ra c 



CMCMCMCMCMCMCM CM CM t\l (M CM 



12 



o.if 



BOARD of SUPERVISORS 







NOVEMBER 19, 1992 



City Hall 

San Francisco 94102 

554-5184 



DOCU*"' 

NOV 24 IS! 

SAN FR/ 
PUBLIC L._. 



NOTICE OF CANCELLED MEETING 
^FINANCE COMMITTEE 



NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the regularly scheduled 
meeting of the Finance Committee for Wednesday, November 
25, 1992, at 2:00 p.m., has been cancelled. 

The next regular meeting of the Finance Committee will 
be held on Wednesday, December 2, 1992, at 2:00 p.m., in 
the Legislative Chamber, Second Floor, City Hall. 



/- \ fj r — " 

C]mL/¥* 

JCHN L. TAYLOR 
/Clerk of/the Board 



POSTED: NOVEMBER 19, 1992 



DOCUMFMTS pcn>T 

N0V24 1992 

SAN FRANCIS 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



FINANCE COMMITTEE 
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
ROOM 235, CITY HALL 
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102 



IMPORTANT 
HEARING NOTICE 



Govt Documents 
Public Library 
Civic Center 
S.F. CA 94102 



D 0133 






CALENDAR -^ T^K*" 

MEETING OF 

FINANCE COMMITTEE 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 



DOCUMENTS DEPT ; 
DEC 4 1992 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARV 



WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 2, 1992 - 2:00 P.M. 



LEGISLATIVE CHAMBER 
2ND FLOOR, CITY HALL 



PRESENT: SUPERVISORS GONZALEZ, MIGDEN, HALLINAN 

ABSENT: SUPERVISOR HALLINAN - ITEMS 9-16, and 18-21 

CLERK: GAIL JOHNSON 

NOTE: Copies of the Budget Analyst's Report will be available for review on the 
counter in the Office of the Clerk of the Board, Room 235, City Hall, 
10:00 a.m., the date of the meeting. 

1. File 100-92-9 . Hearing to consider the City's efforts to secure anticipated revenues 
and fund transfers needed to balance the 1992-93 fiscal year budget for the City and 
County of San Francisco. (Supervisor Gonzalez) 

(Cont'd from 11/18/92) 

ACTION: Hearing held. Continued to December 16, 1992, meeting. 

2. File 27-92-11 . [Airport Advance] Resolution authorizing agreement by and between 
the City, the Airports Commission and various airlines regarding an advance 
payment to the City of $25 million from the Airports' Capital Improvement Fund. 
(Supervisor Gonzalez) 

ACTION: Recommended. 

3. File 170-92-13 . [Airport Revenue Bonds] Resolution approving the issuance of up to 
$2,400,000,000 aggregate principal amount of San Francisco International Airport 
Second Series Revenue Bonds in up to fifteen separate issues for the purpose of 
financing Airport Master Plan Projects, and approving maximum interest rates with 
respect thereto; and adopting findings pursuant to the California Environmental 
Quality Act. (Supervisor Gonzalez) 



ACTION: Amendment of the Whole bearing same title adopted, 
amended. 



Recommended as 



File 101-92-11 . [Government Funding] Ordinance appropriating $2,400,000,000, San 
Francisco International Airport, for Capital Improvement Project, for fiscal year 
1992-93. RO #92099 (Controller) 



ACTION: Recommended. 



5. File 101-92-13 . [Government Funding] Ordinance appropriating $12,020,375, Water 
Department, for various capital improvement projects, rescinding $4,700,000. RO 
#92103 (Supervisor Gonzalez) 

ACTION: Recommended. 

6. File 100-92-11 . [Water Department Funds] Motion transferring to the General Fund 
excess Water Department monies, in the amount of $4,700,000, pursuant to Charter 
Section 6.407(e), effective July 1, 1992. RO #92104 (Supervisor Gonzalez) 

ACTION: Recommended. 

7. File 101-92-14 . [Government Funding] Ordinance appropriating $10,716,761, Hetch 
Hetchy Water and Power, for various capital improvement projects. RO #92102 
(Supervisor Gonzalez) 

ACTION: Recommended. 

8. File 100-92-10 . [Hetch Hetchy Department Funds] Motion transferring to the 
General Fund excess Hetch Hetchy Department monies, in the amount of $2,500,000, 
pursuant to Charter Section 6.407(e), effective July 1, 1992. RO #92105 (Supervisor 
Gonzalez) 

ACTION: Recommended. 

9. File 101-92-12 . [Government Funding] Ordinance appropriating $335,134, 
Superior Court, for professional and other contractual services, services of other 
departments - Real Estate, Public Health, City Planning, courthouse construction. 
RO #92101 (Supervisor Migden) 

ACTION: Amended. (See file for details.) Recommended as amended. New title: 
"Appropriating $304,667, Superior Court, for professional and other 
contractual services, services of other departments - Real Estate, Public 
Health, City Planning, courthouse construction; placing $214,267 on 
reserve." 

10. File 68-92-12 . [Federal Grant - Substance Abuse Prevention] Resolution amending 
Resolutions 858-90 and 116-91, authorizing the Mayor to apply for, accept and 
expend funds in the amount of $721,186, as made available through the Federal 
Office for Substance Abuse Prevention for a project entitled "The Community 
Partnership Program", by authorizing the Mayor to apply for, accept and expend 
funds in the amount of $1,273,997. (Supervisor Migden) 

ACTION: Amendment of the Whole adopted. Recommended as amended. New 
title: "Authorizing the Mayor to apply for, accept and expend funds in 
the amount of $1,273,997, as made available through the Federal Office 
for Substance Abuse Prevention for Calendar Year 1993, for a project 
entitled "The Community Partnership Program", which includes indirect 
costs of $35,161; ratifying actions previously taken; and placing $196,000 
on reserve." 



11. File 172-92-15 . [Project Lease] Ordinance approving and authorizing the execution 
and delivery of an agreement of purchase and sale for real estate (including certain 
indemnities and the release of the seller contained therein), an assignment of 
agreement of purchase and sale for real estate, a facilities lease (including certain 
indemnities contained therein), a trust agreement (including certain indemnities 
contained therein), and an official statement; authorizing the distribution of an 
official notice inviting bids in connection with the City and County of San Francisco 
certificates of participation (1660 Mission Street Project) Series 1993; authorizing 
the Chief Administrative Officer to fix rents to be charged and to submit budgets 
for approval; authorizing and ratifying execution of documents reasonably necessary 
for the execution, delivery and sale of the certificates of participation; and adopting 
findings pursuant to City Planning Code Section 101.1, all in connection with the 
acquisition and leasing of the 1660 Mission Street property; companion measure to 
File 97-92-61. (Chief Administrative Officer) 

(Cont'd from 11/18/92) 

ACTION: Amendment of the Whole bearing same title adopted. Recommended as 
amended. 

12. File 97-92-61 . [Fee Surcharges] Ordinance amending Administrative Code by adding 
Chapter 10F, to establish a surcharge on plan, permit, environmental review, and 
related fees to recover costs for acquiring office space at 1660 Mission Street; 
companion measure to File 172-92-15. (Chief Administrative Officer) 

(Cont'd from 11/18/92) 

ACTION: Recommended. 

13. File 170-92-12 . [Reimbursement from Bond Proceeds] Resolution declaring official 
intent of the City and County of San Francisco to reimburse funds from proceeds of 
taxable or tax-exempt indebtedness for certain expenditures incurred in connection 
with the following projects; (1) providing loans for the seismic strengthening of 
unreinforced masonry buildings devoted to affordable housing and to market-rate 
residential, commercial and institutional uses; and (2) the construction and 
reconstruction of Fire Department facilities. (Chief Administrative Officer) 

ACTION: Amendment of the Whole adopted. Recommended as amended. New 

title: "Declaring official intent of the City and County of San Francisco 
to reimburse funds from proceeds of taxable or tax-exempt indebtedness 
for certain expenditures incurred in connection with the construction and 
reconstruction of Fire Department facilities." 

14. File 68-92-11 . [Grant - Federal Funds] Resolution authorizing the Mayor of the City 
and County of San Francisco to apply for, accept and expend funds in the amount of 
$1,062,500 in year one and $750,000 in each subsequent year through September 29, 
1997, which include indirect costs in the amount of $21,250 year one, or two percent 
of the total grant award here after, made available through the Department of 
Health and Human Services, Office of Human Development for a project entitled 
"San Francisco Gang Prevention Project; and agreeing to provide in-kind match in 
the amount of $459,207; providing for ratification of action previously taken. 
(Mayor) 

ACTION: Recommended. 



15. File 172-92-16 . [Airport - Public Pay Telephone Agreement] Resolution approving 
the "Public Pay Telephone Agreement" between Pacific Bell and the City and County 
of San Francisco, acting by and through its Airports Commission. (Airports 
Commission) 

ACTION: Recommended. 

16. File 173-92-4 . [Approval of Hold Harmless Agreement] Resolution authorizing the 
Port of San Francisco to agree to hold the State of California harmless from all 
claims arising from State Lands Commission processing of a dredging permit. (Port 
Commission) 

ACTION: Amended. (See file for details.) Recommended as amended. 

17. File 51-92-3. Transmitting claims of employees, various departments, for 
reimbursement for personal property damaged and/or stolen in the line of duty. 
(Various) 

July, August, September 1992 

ACTION: Continued to December 16, 1992, meeting. 

18. File 82-92-9 . [Property Acquisition - Noise Easements] Resolution authorizing the 
acquisition of one hundred additional noise easements in the City of South San 
Francisco in their Phase VTI Program - $250,000. (Real Estate Department) 

ACTION: Recommended. 

19. File 65-92-14 . [Lease of Property] Ordinance authorizing lease of Water 
Department land, approximately .71 acres of pipeline right-of-way in Santa Clara 
County to the Roman Catholic Bishop of San Jose. (Public Utilities Commission) 

ACTION: Recommended. 

20. File 106-92-2 . [Salary and Wage Division] Resolution authorizing Civil Service 
Commission to expend funds to conduct the 1993-94 Salary Survey. (Civil Service 
Commission). 

(Transferred from Administration and Oversight Committee 11/17/92 - 
Fiscal Impact) 

ACTION: Recommended. 

21. File 106-92-3 . [Salary and Wage Division] Resolution fixing highest generally 
prevailing wage rates, private employment on public contracts. (Civil Service 
Commission). 

(Transferred from Administration and Oversight Committee 11/17/92 - 
Fiscal Impact) 

ACTION: Recommended. 



SPECIAL ORDER - 3:00 P.M. 

22. File 260-92-1 . [Removal of Funds from Bank of America] Resolution urging the 

transfer of two city remittance banking accounts from the Bank of America, urging 
the transfer of City revolving banking accounts from the Bank of America, urging 
that Bank of America not be used for the City's proposed direct payroll deposit 
program, and urging all officers and employees of the City and County, when given 
the opportunity to utilize the services of a financial institution for the City, to 
consider the use of financial institutions other than the Bank of America. 
(Supervisor Achtenberg) 

(Cont'd from 11/18/92) 

ACTION: Recommended to Board for consideration on December 14, 1992. 



JM&BCic Libraru, "Documents (De,vt. 

CITY AND COUNTY Mffijl ° F S A N ^IflSSAfiC O (^£777/ %0 tfl 

// nor.* impntS DEPT. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DEC0 21992 

BUDGET ANALYST ^ FRANC lSCO 

1390 MARKET STREET, SUITE 1025 PUBLIC LIBRARY 

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102 • TELEPHONE (415) 554-7642 



November 30, 1992 

/// 

TO: Finance Committee 

FROM: Budget Analyst r)«<c>M*<i»etefti,«i 

SUBJECT: December 2, 1992 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 1 - File 100-92-9 

Note: This item was continued at the November 18, 1992, Finance Committee 
meeting. 

This item is a hearing to consider the City's efforts to secure anticipated 
revenues and fund transfers needed to balance the 1992-93 fiscal year budget for 
the City and County of San Francisco. 

On October 27, 1992, a joint report was issued by the Mayor's Budget Office, 
the Controller and the Budget Analyst on the status of matters which are still 
pending action to balance the FY 1992-93 budget. These matters include the 
following: 

Airport Advance - ($25 million): Item No. 2 of this Finance Committee report 
is a resolution authorizing an agreement between the City, the Airports 
Commission, and various airlines regarding advance payment to the City of $25 
million from the Airport's Capital Improvement Fund. 

PUC Equity Transfers and Land Sale - ($7.2 million): These PUC funds 
include equity transfers from the Water Department ($4.7 million) including $2.2 
million from the proposed sale of the Water Department property to the Olympic 
Club and Hetch Hetchy ($2.5 million). Item Nos. 6 and 8 of this Finance Committee 
report, respectively, are motions for the Board of Supervisors to transfer to the 
General Fund excess Water Department and Hetch Hetchy Department monies in 
the total amount of $7.2 million ($4.7 million plus $2.5 million), pursuant to the 
provisions of Charter Section 6.407(e). 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 2, 1992 

Port Transfer - ($1 million) The FY 1992-93 budget approved by the Board of 
Supervisors already includes the $1 million transfer from the Port to the City's 
General Fund. However, the City Attorney has raised some questions regarding the 
legality of this transfer of funds, and is currently reviewing this issue. The City 
Attorney is anticipated to issue an opinion on this matter, in the immediate future. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 2, 1992 

Item 2 -File 27-92-11 

Department: Airports Commission 

Item: Resolution authorizing an agreement by and between the City, 

the Airports Commission and various airlines regarding an 
advance payment to the City of $25 million from the Airport's 
Capital Improvement Fund. 

Amount: $25 million 

Description: To offset the City's 1992-93 budget shortfall, it was proposed by 

the Mayor's Office that the Airport advance $25 million of 
surplus funds from the Airport's Capital Improvement Fund to 
the City's General Fund. The proposed resolution would 
authorize this agreement by and between the City, the Airports 
Commission and the 19 airlines operating at San Francisco 
International Airport regarding this $25 million advance 
payment to the City. According to the Airport, the 19 airlines 
have approved the proposed $25 million advance. 

The proposed $25 million advance would be repaid to the Airport 
from future, annual payments of Airport concession revenues to 
the General Fund. Currently, the Airport is required to pay 15 
percent of its gross receipts received from concession revenues to 
the City's General Fund. This payment is estimated at $15 
million for Fiscal Year 1992-93. The annual payment from the 
Airport to the City of 15 percent of concession revenues is in 
accordance with the Airport's 1981 Lease and Use Agreement 
(settlement agreement). 

The proposed $25 million advance was agreed to by the 19 
airlines which are signatory to the 1981 settlement agreement. 
The previously noted payments from Airport concession 
revenues are paid to the City on a quarterly basis. The $25 
million advanced to the City this year would be deducted from 
future year concession revenue payments from the Airport to the 
City's General Fund, and would be entirely repaid after seven 
years, according to Ms. Angela Gittens of the Airport. Ms. 
Gittens advises that the impact of repayment is expected to 
diminish as concession revenues increase. 

Comments: 1. The City would be required to pay interest on the $25 million 

advance. The rate of this interest would be equal to either the 
interest rate of the Treasurer's pooled cash investment fund, or 
of the Airport bonds that are issued, whichever is higher. 
Establishing the interest rate in this way would guarantee that 
the $25 million loan would earn as much for the Airport as 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 2, 1992 



would be earned on tbe funds if the Airport had not made the 
advance. 

2. The $25 million would be transferred to the City on June 30, 
1993. The repayment of the advance by the City to the Airport 
would be made on a quarterly basis beginning September 30, 
1993. Based on an estimated interest rate of 6.5 percent, the 
City's General Fund will be required to repay $1,625,000 in 
interest during FY 1993-94 or $406,250 per quarter. The quarterly 
payment mechanism would consist of the Airport deducting an 
estimated $406,250 from its estimated $3.75 million quarterly 
concession revenue payment to the City's General Fund, so that 
the City would receive an estimated net amount of $3,343,750 
quarterly in 1993-94. 

3. The $1,625,000 paid to the Airport for the first year would 
consist entirely of interest payments, and would not diminish 
the principal amount owed. The City would begin to make 
payments toward the principal during the second year of the 
loan. Attached is the proposed quarterly repayment schedule as 
proposed in the Advance Agreement. 

4. The proposed loan would benefit the City in that it would 
ameliorate the large budget reductions over the balance of Fiscal 
Year 1992-93 that would otherwise have to be made in order to 
compensate for the loss of State funding. 

5. A copy of the draft agreement includes Section 3.1 Issuance of 
Additional Revenue Bonds to Meet Future Air Transportation 
Needs which states the following; "The City will use its best 
efforts to issue Airport revenue bonds in an amount sufficient to 
fund necessary and appropriate elements of the (Airport's) 
Master Plan." According to Ms. Gittens, the airlines requested 
this provision to ensure that the proposed agreement will not 
affect the financing of the Master Plan. However, the issuance of 
revenue bonds (see Items 3 and 4, Files 101-92-11 and 170-92-13 of 
this report which would approve the issuance and appropriation 
of $2.4 billion in Airport Second Series Revenue Bonds for the 
purpose of financing the Airport's Master Plan projects) is not 
directly related to the proposed agreement regarding the $25 
million advance from the Airport to the General Fund. In 
addition, under Section 2.6 Future Assistance of the proposed 
agreement, there is language which states, "..the City will not 
assess, appropriate or take any other action, either directly or 
indirectly, to cause the City to receive any additional Airport 
revenues, funds or monies during any period in which any 
reimbursement obligation remains outstanding pursuant to this 
agreement." 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 2, 1992 

6. The Budget Analyst believes that Section 2.6 Future 
Assistance , should be sufficient language to prevent the City 
from taking further capital improvement funds from the Airport 
and that Section 3.1 Issuance of Additional Revenue Bonds to 
Meet Fut ure Air Transportation Needs would still require 
separate legislative action by the Board of Supervisors in order to 
approve Airport revenue bond requests. As such, the Budget 
Analyst believes that the inclusion of Section 3.1 Issuance of 
Additional Revenue Bonds to Meet Future Air Transportation 
Needs is a policy matter for the Board of Supervisors. 

Recommendation: Because the City's FY 1992-93 budget includes the $25 million 
advance payment from the Airport, approve the proposed 
resolution. However, the inclusion of Section 3.1 Issuance of 
Additional Revenue Bonds to Meet Future Air Transportation 
Needs is a policy matter for the Board of Supervisors as 
described in Comments 5 & 6 above. 



BOARD OF SU PERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Schedule 2 

Advance of Annual Service Payment 
Repayment Schedule 

Fiscal Year Quarterly Payment 

93/94 Interest Only 

94/95 Interest Plus 1.25% of Advance Amount 

95/96 Interest Plus 2.5% of Advance Amount 

96/97 Interest Plus 3.75% of Advance Amount 

97/98 Interest Plus 5.0% of Advance Amount 

98/99 Interest Plus 6.25% of Advance Amount 

90/00 Interest Plus 6.25% of Advance Amount 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 2, 1992 

Items 3 and 4 - Files 170-92-13 and 101-92-11 



Department: 
Items: 



Amount: 



San Francisco Airports Commission 

Ordinance appropriating $2,400,000,000 in Master Plan Bond 
proceeds for Near Term Master Plan Projects including 
construction, capitalized interest, reserve funds and bond 
underwriter discount and issuance costs (File 101-92-11). 

Resolution approving the issuance of up to $2,400,000,000 in 
San Francisco International Airport Second Series Revenue 
Bonds which may be divided into as many as 15 separate 
issues for the purpose of financing Airport Master Plan 
Projects, and approving a minimum interest rate for those 
bonds (File 170-92-13). 

Not to exceed $2,400,000,000 



Source of Funds: Airport Revenue Bonds 

Description: Section 17.306(a) of the City Charter provides that the Airports 

Commission has the authority to issue Airport Revenue 
Bonds for the purpose of acquiring, constructing, improving 
or developing Airport facilities, subject to the approval of the 
Board of Supervisors. The Airports Commission has 
authorized the issuance of not to exceed $2.4 billion aggregate 
principal amount of its San Francisco International Airport 
Second Series Revenue Bonds in up to 15 separate bond 
issues, known as the Master Plan Issues, for the purpose of 
financing the Near Term Master Plan Projects. The 
proposed resolution (File 170-92-13) would authorize the 
Airports Commission to issue up to $2.4 billion in bonds for 
the purposes identified in the companion Supplemental 
Appropriation (File 101-92-11) which would appropriate the 
requested funds as follows: 



Categ ory 



Amount 



Construction $1,802,000,000 

Capitalized Interest 336,000,000 

Reserve Funds 206,000,000 

Underwriter Discount and Issuance Costs 56000.000 

Total $2,400,000,000 

Under the provisions of the Charter, the bonds issued by the 
Airports Commission are obligations of the Airport and 
neither the credit nor taxing power of the City is pledged to 
the payment of the principal or interest of these bonds. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 2, 1992 



Rather, the bond interest and redemption payments are 
supported solely by Airport revenues. 

The Charter also specifies in Section 7.306(b) that Revenue 
Bonds issued by the Airport shall bear a rate of interest not to 
exceed that which may be fixed by the Airports Commission 
subject to approval by the Board of Supervisors. In 
accordance with State law, the proposed resolution would 
establish mainmnm rates of interest for each of the up to 15 
Master Plan Bond Issues as follows: 12 percent per annum 
with respect to bond issues, the interest income due and 
payable on which is excluded from gross income for Federal 
income tax purposes; and 15 percent per annum with respect 
to bond issues, the interest on which is included in gross 
income for federal income tax purposes. 

The Airport's financial advisors, Lazard Freres & Company 
and Grigsby Brandford & Company, a Minority Business 
Enterprise (MBE), estimate that the bonds can actually be 
sold at an interest rate between 6.3 and 6.5 percent for issues 
in which the interest earned is excluded from Federal 
income taxes, and between 7.5 to 8.0 percent for issues in 
which the interest earned is included for Federal income tax 
purposes. Because Airport bond debt service is paid from net 
Airport revenues received from the airlines and 
concessionaires doing business at the Airport, all prospective 
bond issuances must be approved by the Airline Affairs 
Committee which is composed of representatives from the 19 
airlines operating at San Francisco International Airport. 
The Airline Affairs Committee has approved the proposed 
new bonds with a stipulation that the interest rate cannot 
exceed 12 percent for bond issues in which the interest 
earned is excluded from Federal income taxes and cannot 
exceed 15 percent for bond issues in which the interest 
earned is included for Federal income tax purposes. 

On November 3, 1992, the Airports Commission approved the 
new Master Plan for San Francisco International Airport 
which includes the Near Term Master Plan Projects 
estimated to cost $1,919,427,000 (listed in Attachment I) and 
(located by letter on the map in Attachment II). Both 
attachments were provided by the Airport. According to Mr. 
John Martin of the Airport, the difference of $117,427,000 
between the $1,919,427,000 total construction cost of the Near 
Term Master Plan Projects and the $1,802,000,000 total 
construction cost component in the total $2.4 billion in Master 
Plan Bond proceeds is the anticipated interest income to be 
earned by the Airport which will be accumulated over the 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 2, 1992 



next four years from the sale of up to fifteen separate bond 
issues. 

The $1,919,427,000 identified for construction projects would 
accomplish the following: 

Terminals 

International Terminal (A, see Attachment II), $317,906,000 - 
Construction of the new International Terminal will require 
the phased demolition and reconstruction of Boarding Area 
B, ultimately providing a new facility of approximately 
500,000 square feet. Boarding Area B, Phase I, will provide 
replacement gates during the construction of Boarding Area 
A and will provide additional domestic gates to satisfy the 
long-term forecast demand. 

Boarding Area A, Phase I (B, see Attachment II), 
$154,103,000 - Construction of the new International 
Terminal will require the phased demolition and 
reconstruction of Boarding Area B, ultimately providing a 
new facility of approximately 500,000 square feet. Boarding 
Area B, Phase I, will provide replacement gates during the 
construction of Boarding Area A and will provide additional 
domestic gates to satisfy the long-term forecast demand. 

Boarding Area G (C, see Attachment II), $162,384,000 - A 
new Boarding Area a G", approximately 350,000 square feet, 
adjacent to the North Terminal, will be identical to new 
Boarding Area "A" and does not replace an existing boarding 
area. 

Boarding Area B - Phase I (D, see Attachment II), 
$109,852,000 - Construction of the new International 
Terminal will require the phased demolition and 
reconstruction of Boarding Area B, ultimately providing a 
new facility of approximately 500,000 square feet. Boarding 
Area B, Phase I, will provide replacement gates during the 
construction of Boarding Area A and will provide additional 
domestic gates to satisfy the long-term forecast demand. 

Boarding Area D Remodel (R, see Attachment II), $24,500,000 
- The existing International Terminal and Boarding Area D 
will be renovated and converted into a domestic terminal. 
The square footage and number of gates currently in use will 
remain approximately the same. 



BOARD OF SU PERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 2, 1992 



Air Freight/Airline M«inten«nra 

Plot 1 Cargo Maintenance Facility (P, see Attachment II) - 
$44,392,000 - The existing Plot 1 facilities will be demolished 
and a smaller replacement facility will be located to the north 
of the existing site to accommodate the construction of the 
Boarding Area "A". 

West Field Cargo/Maintenance Facility - Phase 1 (F, see 
Attachment II) - $39,680,000 - The West Field 
Cargo/Maintenance Area will provide both replacement and 
new buildings for airfreight and aircraft maintenance 
operations. This area will provide the flexibility to 
accommodate both airfreight and aircraft maintenance 
facilities in several building totaling approximately 325,000 
square feet. The facilities will consist of high-bay buildings 
with truck loading-unloading on the landside and aircraft 
hardstands on the airside. 

North Field Cargo/Maintenance Facility - (G, see Attachment 
II) - $49,600,000 - The North Field Cargo/Maintenance Area 
will be configured to accommodate a more efficient facility 
configuration and provide additional aircraft parking area. 
The facilities to be developed in this area represent both new 
and replacement buildings for airfreight and/or aircraft 
maintenance functions. Approximately 432,000 square feet 
will be constructed in the area, consisting of both high-bay 
airfreight buildings and/or aircraft maintenance hangars. 
Airside access is provided via Taxiway C and landside access 
via the North Field Access Road. 

Remodel TWA Cargo Facility (Q, see Attachment II) - 
$6,125,000 - The TWA Cargo Facility, located to the South of 
Boarding Area A, will be reconfigured to accommodate the 
planned extension of Taxiways A and B at the South 
Terminal. 

Airport Support 

Multipurpose Facility (I, see Attachment H) - $3,100,000 - The 
multipurpose Airport operations facility will replace a 
number of the emergency contingency functions currently 
located in Building 1000 and will provide high-security VTP 
processing. The multilevel facility will consist of 
approximately 15,000 square feet with an apron Area located 
adjacent to Taxiway C for aircraft parking. Ground access 
on the landside will be provided via the realigned North Field 
Access road. 



BOARD OF S UPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

in 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 2, 1992 



Relocation of Crash Fire Rescue (CFR)/Support Building (J, 
see Attachment II) - $5,268,000 - The existing CFR support 
building of approximately 12,000 square feet is to be relocated 
from its current location on the east side of CFR Building 1. 
The facility is utilized for the storage of equipment required to 
maintain CFR operations at the Airport. The existing CFR 
Building 1 will have to be relocated due to the clearance 
requirements for the proposed adjacent B747-400 taxiway. 

General Aviation 

Fixed Based Operator/General Aviation (FBO/GA) Building 
(E, see Attachment II) - $19,840,000 - The existing FBO, 
located at the end of Road R-6, and the Chevron general 
aviation facilities, located on Plot 85, with a combined 
building area of 88,112 square feet, will be relocated to the 
East Field area in a 90,000 square foot facility. The current 
location will be utilized for roadway extension and 
cargo/maintenance facilities. 

Crnnmerpifl ] 

Service Station (S, see Attachment II) - $1,225,000 - The 
existing Chevron Service Station, consisting of an 
approximately 1,000 square foot facility and adjoining 
exterior service area, will be relocated to Lot CC. The current 
location on the north side of the terminal access road will be 
utilized by the proposed Ground Transportation Center. 

Transportation 

Ground Transportation Center (K, see Attachment II) - 
$269,945,000 - The development of a six-floor Ground 
Transportation Center will provide a centralized processing 
point for passengers arriving or departing the Airport via 
rental cars, shuttle van or buses. The facility will provide 2.5 
million square feet of space and will be composed of two 
multi-level structures that will flank each side of the 
Airport's entry roadway and share the two-level arrival and 
departure roadway with the proposed new International 
Terminal. This facility will significantly reduce the 
vehicular demand on the existing terminal loop roadways. 
Passengers will access the terminal via the Airport Light 
Rail System (ALRS) from within the Ground Transportation 
Center. The facility will free up limited terminal roadway 
and curb space utilized by private vehicles, thereby relieving 
congestion on the roadways during peak-hour periods. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

11 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 2, 1992 



Airport Light Rail System - Phase I (see Attachment III) 
$330,990,000* The Airport Light Rail System (ALRS) will 
connect the Ground Transportation Center to the terminal 
areas. The ALRS will have a fixed dual guideway support 
system forming two independent loops with vehicles moving 
in opposite directions. The existing terminals will be served 
by stations along the front entrances at each boarding area on 
both the upper and lower levels. The new International 
Terminal will be served by an elevated station in the atrium 
above the terminal's third level. The Ground Transportation 
Center will have four stations serving the transportation 
lobby and rental car counters. The system will cross over the 
Bayshore Freeway (US 101), to a mass transit station west of 
US 101, cross back over US 101 and then proceed north along 
the Airport's frontage road to serve remote parking facilities 
and major Airport employment centers, including the United 
Airlines Maintenance Base. In June 1992, the Metropolitan 
Transportation Commission (MTC), Bay Area Rapid Transit 
(BART) District Board and San Mateo County Transit District 
(SamTrans) agreed to extend BART to a transportation center 
on Airport property adjacent to the CalTrain tracks west of 
US 101. This transportation center is expected to be 
operational by 1997 serving CalTrain, SamTrans, and all 
areas of the Airport via an extension from the ALRS. It is 
expected that the BART extension to the Airport would not be 
completed until 2003, six years after the completion of the 
ALRS and the transportation center connecting CalTrain 
and SamTrans with the Airport. The last stop of BART to the 
Airport would be 1.5 miles from the Airport. At that point, 
BART passengers going to the Airport would transfer to the 
ALRS to complete their trip to one of many passenger and 
employee destination points at the Airport. 

♦Total of $349,600,000 with the related Airport Light Rail 
System Maintenance Facility (see below). 



Airport Light Rail System Maintenance Facility (see 
Attachment HI) - $18,600,000 - The Airport Light Rail System 
(ALRS) consists of 6.5 miles of guideway and fifteen 3-car 
train units, all of which require routine maintenance. The 
ALRS Maintenance Facility will be located adjacent to the 
long-term parking area and will consist of approximately 
14,000 square feet of enclosed maintenance area. The 
maintenance building will include functions such as off-line 
switching, vehicle inspection, washing and maintenance. 
The building will contain offices, storerooms, lunch/locker 
facilities and maintenance shops. Off-line guideways, 
sufficient to store the entire fleet of vehicles, will be provided. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

12 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 2, 1992 



BJjgBfiflangHia Facilities 

Relocation of Coast Guard Facilities (T, see Attachment II) - 
$24,500,000 - Several modifications to the existing U. S. Coast 
Air Station (USCG) are required to accommodate the new 2- 
lane USCG Perimeter Road. 

Seaplane Harbor Dock Facility (U, see Attachment H) - 
$1,225,000 - A multi-use dock facility, located adjacent to the 
U. S. Coast Guard Station (USCG) at Seaplane Harbor, is 
planned for the possibility of shipping and receiving freight 
via ferry service and as an alternative means of Airport 
access in an emergency situation. 

Parking 

Addition to Lot a D" (M, see Attachment II) - $9,800,000 - 
Grading and paving a parking lot for 2,000 cars in what is 
now a portion of the clear zone and a portion of the North 
Detention Pond and joining it to present Lot "D" by relocating 
the service road to the field side of the parking lot. This 
project will add parking for the public. Improvement will 
include fighting, pavement painting, drainage and fencing. 

Lot "DD" Paving (N, see Attachment II) - $9,188,000 - This 
project will grade and pave a parking lot for 3,000 vehicles. 
Parking Lot "DD" will be located west of the present United 
Airlines (UAL) employee parking lot at San Bruno Avenue 
and South Airport Boulevard. This lot will provide parking 
for employees and the public. 

Lot "DD" Parking Structure (O, see Attachment II) - 
$44,640,000 - The multi-story parking structure to be built 
adjacent to Lot DD is planned to accommodate long-term 
public parking, as well as tenant and Airport employee 
parking. The parking structure will be accessed via South 
Airport Boulevard and will provide approximately 3,000 
parking stalls. 

Roadway Improvements 

United States Coast Guard (USCG) Perimeter Roadway (V, 
see Attachment II) - $12,250,000 - Construction of a new 2- 
lane roadway on the Bay side of the present USCG Air Station 
to provide unsecured access to the East Field development. 
The construction of an unimpeded unsecured roadway 
adjacent to the USCG Air Station seawall will permit 
employees and visitors to the East Field area to access those 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



13 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 2, 1992 



facilities from the North Access Road. Development of the 
Multi-purpose Operations Facility, FBO/GA Building, and 
aircraft maintenance facilities will greatly increase the 
number of movements to this area, and security and safety 
issues dictate that an unsecured roadway be constructed. 
Improvements will include lighting, signing, signalization, 
pavement painting, fencing and drainage. 

North Access Road (W, see Attachment II) - $1,225,000 - The 
current North Access Road from South Airport Boulevard to 
the USCG Perimeter Road is mostly two-lane. This project 
would widen the roadway to four lanes plus left-turn and 
merging lanes (where feasible) in order to accommodate 
increasing airport traffic. Improvements will include 
lighting, signing, signalization, pavement painting, fencing 
and drainage. 

Ramps and Elevated Roadways (H, see Attachment II) - 
$216,807,000 - A new elevated roadway system around the 
Ground Transportation Center (GTC) and connecting ramps 
to the Bayshore Freeway (US 101) and the Interstate 380 
viaduct. This project would provide direct access to the new 
International Terminal and the GTC from US 101. This 
project includes a connection from the Interstate 380 viaduct 
to US 101 northbound with related realignments of the San 
Bruno Avenue interchange and Road R-3. Improvements 
would include lighting, signing, landscaping, pavement 
painting, fencing, drainage, and improvements to existing 
surface roadways. 

Widen South Perimeter Road (X, see Attachment II) - 
$1,225,000 - The Airport frontage road from the West 
Underpass to Millbrae Avenue now exists as two lanes of 
traffic, one in each direction. This project would widen the 
roadway to four lanes (where it is feasible) in order to 
accommodate increasing airport traffic and minimize traffic 
congestion. Improvements would include lighting, signing, 
signalization, pavement painting, fencing, drainage, and 
improvement to existing intersections. 

Airside Improvements 

Taxiway A & B Realignment - North Terminal (Y, see 
Attachment II) - $12,250,000 - The realignment of Taxiways 
"A" and "B" at the North Terminal will provide the necessary 
clearances for aircraft taxiing and parking and for service 
roads around the Boarding Area "G". Work includes 
replacement and overlay of pavements, and installation of 
centerline lighting and striping. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



14 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 2, 1992 



Taxiway A & B Realignment (Z, see Attachment II) - South 
Terminal - Phase II - $11,129,000 - The realignment of 
Taxiways "A: and :B: at the South Terminal will provide the 
necessary clearances for aircraft taxiing and parking and for 
service roads around the new Boarding Area "A". Work 
includes replacement and overlay of pavements, and 
installation of centerline lighting and striping. 

Demolition 

Demolition for Near-Term Master Plan Projects (Related to 
all proposed projects) - $5,653,000 - Various demolition 
contracts to prepare areas for construction of proposed 
Master Plan projects. 

Other Support Projects 

Land Surveying (Related to all proposed projects) - $750,000 - 
Various contracts to provide needed topographical, boundary 
and construction surveys on an "as-needed" basis during 
design and construction of proposed Master Plan Projects. 

Geotechnical Investigation (Related to all proposed projects) - 
$475,000 - Various contracts to provide review, exploration 
and analysis of subsurface soil conditions in conjunction 
with proposed Master Plan Projects. 

Materials Testing (Related to all proposed projects) - 
$1,000,000 - Various contracts to provide soils sampling, 
testing and inspection, concrete review, inspection and 
testing, welding inspection, and other materials testing in 
conjunction with proposed Master Plan Projects. 

Hazardous Waste Removal (Related to all proposed projects) - 
$9,800,000 - Various contracts for the identification, removal, 
packaging and transportation of hazardous waste to legal 
disposal sites, or processing into non-hazardous materials, 
in conjunction with demolition, site preparation and 
construction of proposed Master Plan Projects. 

The Airports Commission's approval of the Master Plan 
occurred upon their review of an environmental impact 
report (EER) prepared and certified by the Department of City 
Planning and requirements governed by the California 
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

15 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 2, 1992 



The EIR has found that, without mitigation measures, the 
San Francisco International Airport (SFIA) Master Plan 
would have the following significant environmental impacts: 

• An unacceptable level of traffic congestion at the following 
intersections: California Drive at Millbrae Avenue (a.m. and 
p.m. peak hours), Rollins Road and Millbrae Ave. (p.m. peak 
hours), and Long-Term Parking Road and Road R-3 on SFIA 
property and at Holly Street and Ralston Avenue (a.m. and 
p.m. peak hours). 

• An unacceptable level of traffic congestion on certain 
freeway ramps and freeway sections in the vicinity of SFIA. 

• Increased noise levels at sensitive receptors such as 
schools during construction activities. 

• Violations of air quality standards due to dust production 
during construction. 

• Increased frequency of violation of carbon monoxide 
standards at certain nearby intersections (violations would 
occur at these locations without the project but would occur 
more frequently with the project and without extensive 
transportation mitigation). 

• Air pollutant emissions that exceed Bay Area Air Quality 
Management District thresholds. 

• Possible negative impacts on subsurface cultural 
resources (i.e. pre-historical Indian artifacts) during 
construction. 

• The potential for sediment produced by construction 
activities entering storm drains and/or the bay. 

• Soil temporarily exposed to erosion during construction. 

• Exposure of construction workers, other Airport workers 
or the public, to hazardous wastes if hazards are found in 
soils or ground water in or around construction areas. 

• Contribute to cumulative traffic increases on US 101 in the 
vicinity that would add to traffic congestion on some 
segments of the freeway and would contribute to cumulative 
air quality impacts in San Mateo County and the Bay Area 
region. 



BOARD OF S UPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

16 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 2, 1992 



As a result of the EIR, the Airports Commission has adopted 
mitigation measures to alleviate the potentially significant 
impacts associated with construction proposals of the Master 
Plan Projects and found overriding considerations regarding 
the remaining unavoidable project impacts. 

The following mitigation measures and overriding 
considerations are addressed in the Airport Commission's 
Mitigation Plan: 

(a) provide up to $120 million in funding to insulate noise 
impacted homes in the communities surrounding the 
Airport (as defined in the 65 Community Noise Equivalent 
Level* (CNEL) contour as it existed in 1983 without any carve 
out for homes purchased after 1983); 

(b) construct a $349.6 million on Airport Light Rail System 
(ALRS) ($330,990,000) and Maintenance Facility ($18,600,000) 
(see Attachment III) connecting with an intermodal 
transportation center for Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART), 
CalTrain and SamTrans to provide access to all parts of the 
Airport and to provide employees who work at the Airport a 
meaningful public transit alternative (see earlier description 
under Transportation); 

(c) work with the Roundtable (membership includes a 
Supervisor from the County of San Mateo and the Mayors 
from the Cities of Brisbane, Burlingame, Daly City, Foster 
City, Hillsborough, Millbrae, Pacifica, San Bruno and South 
San Francisco) on a comprehensive annual plan of noise- 
related measures to be addressed by the Airport and the 
Roundtable and fund the Roundtable at $100,000 per year; 

(d) contribute $250,000 to a study of traffic congestion in San 
Mateo County and work with the City/County Association of 
Governments to development a joint work plan to implement 
the recommendations of the study; 

(e) spend up to $120 million for the construction of an 
intermodal transit center connecting the proposed Airport 
Light Rail System (ALRS) to CalTrain west of U.S. 101; 

* See (a) above. This is a measurement of cumulative noise 
rather than single event noise. 

(f) implement a transportation system management program 
that will result in a 20 percentage point reduction in the 
percentage of passengers and employees who travel to the 
airport by single-occupant vehicles and meet the countywide 

BOARD OF SUPERVLSORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



17 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 2, 1992 

standards of the San Mateo County Congestion Management 
Plan; 

(g) fund and provide for construction of a child care center 
west of U. S. 101, in conjunction with a new multi-modal 
transit Station; and 

(h) implement a comprehensive series of mitigation 
measures specifically designed to reduce other impacts of the 
Master Plan, including air quality, construction noise, 
energy, cultural resources, public services, seismicity, and 
geology. 

Comments: 1. As indicated above, the difference of $117,427,000 between 

the $1,919,427,000 total construction cost of the Near Term 
Master Plan Projects and the $1,802,000,000 total construction 
cost component in the total $2.4 billion in Master Plan Bond 
proceeds is the anticipated interest income to be earned by the 
Airport which will be accumulated over the next four years 
from the sale of up to fifteen separate bond issues. 

2. Mr. Chris Brittle of the Metropolitan Transportation 
Commission (MTC) reports that the annual number of 
passenger trips using airport facilities in the San Francisco 
Bay Region will more than double from the 1990 level of 42 
million to 84.7 million by the year 2010 and the anticipated 
San Francisco International Airport (SFIA) share of that 
total wffl increase from 29.7 million (32 million in 1991-92) to 
49.9 million annual passengers, although SFIA's total 
percentage would decrease from 70.7 percent to 59.0 percent 
of the total number of passengers between 1990 and 2010. 

3. Mr. Leo Fermin of the Airport advises that the number of 
annual SFIA passenger trips for FY 1991-92 totaled 32.0 
million and the projected number of annual SFIA passenger 
trips for the years 2000 and 2006 will increase to 42.6 million 
(33.1 percent) and 51.0 million (59.4 percent) respectively. 
The 51.0 million passenger trip projection for 2006 is 1.1 
million higher than the MTC 49.9 million passenger trip 
projection for 2010. The proposed construction would 
increase the number of boarding area gates from the current 
80 to 103 (28.8 percent) by 1996. The current and proposed 
passenger aircraft gate distributions are as follows: 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 2, 1992 





As of 


As of 


Ares 


Sent. 1991 


June 1996 


South Terminal 


39 


33 


Central Terminal 


10 


14 


North Terminal 


31 


30 


New International Terminal 


- 


JS 


Total Gates 


80 


103 



4. Mr. Louis Turpen, Director of Airports, estimates that the 
anticipated construction during the four year period 1993 to 
1997, will generate $43 million in new sales tax revenues 
area- wide of which $10 million in new sales tax revenues has 
been estimated for San Francisco ($2.5 million per year). The 
$10 million or 23.3 percent of the total amount is the Airport's 
estimate of sales tax which will accrue to San Francisco from 
supplies purchased for the proposed new construction and 
the goods purchased by construction workers hired to 
complete the construction work. The anticipated work is 
estimated to create 4,025 construction and other related jobs 
area-wide of which 1,000 jobs or 24.8 percent would go to San 
Francisco residents as projected by the Airport using data 
from the Department of City Planning's Environmental 
Impact Report (EER) for the San Francisco International 
Airport Master Plan. However, the Budget Analyst notes 
that the EIR projections (EER, Volume I, page 396) are for 
permanent employments and may not be fully comparable for 
the projection of construction jobs. 

5 Mr. Turpen also estimates, that during the three year 
period from 1997 to 2000, after construction is completed, 
Airport businesses are estimated to generate $19 million in 
new sales and business tax revenues for the City ($6.33 
million per year) and $17.9 million in additional service 
payments to the City ($6.0 million per year) from new 
businesses and concessionaires (15 percent of the total 
estimated annual concession revenues of $39.8 million. 

6. According to Ms. Angela Gittens of the Airport, award of 
all contracts will be made by competitive bid and will be made 
in accordance with the Airport's Minority Business 
Enterprise/Women Business Enterprise (MBE/WBE) plan. 
According to the Airport's internal records, during FY 1991- 
92, July 1, 1991 through June 30, 1992, the Airport has 
awarded $12,066,291, or 29.8 percent of total contract dollars 
to minority businesses and $613,143, or 1.5 percent of total 
contract dollars to women businesses. 



BOARD OF SU PERVLSORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

19 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 2, 1992 



7. Ms. Gittens states that the contracts for the first scheduled 
work to be funded under the subject supplemental 
appropriation are expected to be put out to bid in February 
1993, with construction of the final projects expected to be 
completed in Fiscal Year 1997/1998. 

8. According to Ms Gittens of the Airport, the $1,802,000,000 
($1,919,427,000 less $117,427,000 anticipated interest to be 
earned from the Revenue Bonds, see Comment 1) set aside for 
construction would be distributed as follows: $247,800,000 for 
engineering design ($233,000,000) and art enrichment 
($14,800,000) and $1,554,200,000 for construction contracts. 
Until the Airport identifies the contractors and contract 
details, and provides information on the contractor's 
MBE/WBE status, the $1,554,200,000 set aside for outside 
contracts should be reserved. 

9. Attachment V is a letter from Mr. Turpen, Director of 
Airports, to the Board of Supervisors Finance Committee 
which identifies the impact of the subject Airport Light Rail 
System (ALRS) on the proposed extension of BART to the 
Airport (see Airport Light Rail System Mitigation Measure 
(b)). In that letter to the Finance Committee, Mr. Turpen 
states "The Budget Analyst has also asked that I comment on 
the impact of the passage of a currently-circulating initiative 
petition which calls for BART extending to a location 
underneath the Airport garage rather than to the 
transportation center. The concept envisioned by the petition 
has not been subjected to any engineering or cost analyses, 
according to MTC. However, the Airport Master Plan 
projects do not foreclose alternate options to BART." 

10. Subsequent to the June 1992 MTC, BART and SamTrans 
approvals of the BART extension to the San Francisco 
International Airport, a voter's initiative petition has been 
proposed which would provide a BART loop tunneling 
underground from the proposed transportation center to a 
BART station five stories under the existing parking garage 
at the Airport (Attachment IV). This loop would replace the 
Airport's light rail service system (as described above) to the 
transportation center. Preliminary estimates for the 
proposed loop construction to extend BART to beneath the 
existing parking garage at the Airport range between $300 
and $400 million compared with an estimated $20 million for 
the construction of a BART station next to the proposed 
transportation center west of US 101 according to cost 
estimates provided by Mr. Turpen. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

20 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 2, 1992 



11. Mr. Turpen advises that locating a transportation center 
west of US 101 linking BART, CalTrain and SamTrans to the 
Airport with the Airport Light Rail System (ALRS) would 
better serve the immediate and future needs of Airport 
passengers and employees alike than the alternative of 
linking of BART directly into the Airport which would take 
several additional years to complete. In addition, the ALRS 
would permit the ready distribution of both passengers and 
employees directly to several different terminal and work 
station sites within the Airport as opposed to concentrating 
the arrival of all BART users at one terminus. Further, the 
tunneling of BART into the existing Airport transportation 
and terminal complex would require the removal of several 
piers which support the present Airport building complex. 

12. Attachment VI is a memorandum from State Senator 
Kopp, the author of the initiative petition being circulated to 
provide for a BART station five stories under the existing 
parking garage at the Airport. Senator Kopp states that Mr. 
Turpen has omitted that the Boards of MTC, BART and 
SamTrans have also approved BART's extension directly into 
the Airport if the City and County of San Francisco could 
finance the extension. In addition, Senator Kopp states that 
Mr. Frank Wilson, BART's General Manager, has publicly 
predicted completion of the a BART station within the Airport 
in 1997 and not 2003 as identified by Mr. Turpen, whereas 
Mr. Turpen's estimate of a 1997 completion date for ALRS 
may be optimistic in light of possible litigation sponsored by 
nearby cities. Also, Senator Kopp points out that the initiative 
petition does not prohibit the construction and operation of an 
ALRS among the Airport terminals nor, as Mr. Turpen 
advises, does it compel the construction of an Airport loop, 
even though it is the least expensive alternative. Finally, 
Senator Kopp's memorandum states that Airport officials 
informed BART officials last spring that the BART extension 
directly into the Airport would cost $125,000,000 as compared 
with the ALRS costing approximately $250,000,000. Senator 
Kopp states that a March 1991 engineering report concludes 
that the piles supporting the present Airport building 
complex can be safely removed without jeopardizing support. 



BOARD OF SUPERVLSORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

21 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 2, 1992 

Recommendations: 1. Approval of the proposed resolution (File 170-92-13) to issue 
$2,400,000,000 in bonds for the construction of Near-Term 
Master Plan Projects is a policy decision for the Board of 
Supervisors. 

2. In accordance with Comment No. 8 above, amend the 
proposed Supplemental Appropriation Ordinance (File 101- 
92-11) to reserve $1,554,200,000 of the amount requested for 
construction contracts (see Comment 8 above) pending 
identification of the contractors, the MBE/WBE status of the 
contracts and the contract cost details. Approval of the 
amended ordinance is a policy matter for the Board of 
Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

22 



Attachment I 



EXHIBIT A 



KEAK.TERM MASTER PIAJf PROJECTS 



Project Description 



Project Coat 1 



TfrmlnsU 




Intl Terminal (Arrivals BJdj) 


S 317,906 


Boardin| Area A 


154403 


Boardiaj Area O 


1623M 


Boardin|AreaB-PhaseI 


109332 


Boarding Area D, Remodel 


24.300 




768,745 


AJr Frdrht/AJrline Maintenance 





Plot 1 Carxo/Maiat Facility 44,392 

West Field Ctrjo/MiinL Fac-Fh. I 59,640 
North Field Carjo/Maint. Facility 49300 
Remc>dd TWA Carjo Facility 6.125 

139,797 

Airport Support 

Multipurpose Faculty 3400 

Relocation-CFR/Support Buildinj 5268 

8368 



Qtr\tn] AvJMign 
FBOBuHdin| 

Commerdal 

Service Station 



19340 



1325 



TfrftspYrwipa 

Ground Transportation Center 269345 

Light Rail System (LRS>Phase I 330390 

LRS Maintenance Facility 18.600 

S 619335 



Project Description 



Project Cost» 



Miscellaneous Ficflttfcs 
Relocatkm-Coast Guard FacQlxio I 24300 
Seaplane Harbor Dock FacQity |j2j 

25,725 



Addition to Lot TT 


9300 


LofDrrPavini 


9488 


Lot *DD* Paddni Stractare 


44.640 




63328 


Roadway Improvements 




USCG Perimeter Roadway 


12350 


North Access Road 


1325 


Ramps A Elevated Roadways 


216307 


Widen South Perimeter Road 


lltf 




231307 


Alnide Improvements 




Taxfway A & B Realignment 




North Terminal 


12350 


Taxfway A & B Realignment 




South Terminal-Phase II 


1L122 




23379 


P?n9litfOfl 




Preparation for Near -Term Project 


i 5353 


Other Support Projects 




Land Surveyinf 


750 


Cto technical Investigation 


475 


Materials Testing 


1300 


Hazardous Waste Removal 


9.800 




12,075 



Total 



31.919.4 



NOTE: ^Project costs are subject to change ft modification. Architectural, 
engineering, inspection, contingency fees, and an allowance for art 
enrichment are included in Project Cost. Master Plan Projects will 
also include such other projects which may hereafter constitute 
part of the Near-Term Master Plan. 



23 



Attachment II 




Attachment ] 




Attachment IV 




ftLLdcnmeni v 
NOV 30 '92 11 :56AM SFIA ADMINISTRATION 



Honorable Jim Gonzalez. Chair November 30, 1992 

Finance Committee 

Board of Supervisors 

City and County of San Francisco 

Room 235, City Hall 

San Francisco, CA 94102 

Dear Supervisor Gonzalez: 

The Budget Analyst has asked that I identify, "the impact of the subject Airport 
Light Rail System (ALRS) on the proposed extension of BART to the airport." 

As Indicated In the map attached to the Budget Analyst's report (Attachment 
in), the plan for BART access to the Airport, approved by the Metropolitan 
Transportation Commission (MTC), BART, and Sam Trans, is to extend BART 
to a transportation center on Airport property adjacent to the CalTrain tracks. 
The Airport's light-rail system would connect this transportation center to the 
Airport passenger terminals, rental car garages, remote parking lots, United 
Airlines Maintenance Base, cargo areas and a ferry service terminal. The 
transportation center would serve CalTrain, BART and Sam Trans. 

The Budget Analyst has also asked that I comment on the impact of the passage 
of a currently-circulating initiative petition which calls for BART extending to 
a location underneath the Airport garage rather than to the transportation 
center, The concept envisioned by the petition has not been subjected to any 
engineering or cost analyses, according to MTC. However, the Airport Master 
Plan projects do not foreclose alternate options to BART. 

Very truly yours. 





yTurpen 
Director of Airports 



LAT:AG:bh 

cc: Honorable Carole Migden 

Honorable Terence Hallinan 

Budget Analyst 

Airports Commission 
bcc: Admin/Chron/File/WP'Gonzalez 

27 



NOV 30 '92 06: 21PM 

SAOMMCNTO *OOACS« 

STATE CARTCX 

83014 I . 

<«!«< 443 0303 



OSTWtCT OJFtCCB 
M>D.CAMINOI«CAL«109 (J 
•O. MN t aanCisco. CA «4Gao 
(4181934 W«« 



Attachm e nt VI 
Page 1 of 2 



P.l 



California fttate Senate 




COMM1TTCKS 
TAAIWTOflTATtON. CHAMIMAN 

housing * ursan irruin 
local oovchnmcnt 

ftCVCNUC • TAXATION 
TOxCB * WMmX »AFeTY 
HANAQCMCNT 



STATE SENATOR 

QUENTIN L KOPP 

SXXTH SCNATOWAL M3TWCT 
REPRCSENTING SAN rftANOSCO AND SAN MATEO COUNT! tS 

MEMORANDUM 



TO: 

FROM: 
RE: 

DATE: 



Harvey Rose, 

Budget Analyst, Board of Supervisors 

Senator Quentin L. Kopp 

Your memo to Finance Committee respecting 
Items 3 and 4 - Files 170-92-13 and 101-92-11 

November 30, 1992 



I write respecting the proposed ordinance appropriating 
$2,400,000,000 in Master Plan Bond proceeds for San Francisco's 
Airport. I write to correct and elaborate on the information 
supplied in the aforementioned report. 

First, the report notes that MTC, BART and SamTrans 
approved BART's extension to a station west of Highway 101. In 
addition, as many San Franciscans know, the Boards of these 
transportation agencies at the same time also approved BART's 
extension directly into SFO if the City and County of San 
Francisco could finance the extension. Final and more precise 
plans for the exact routing of the extension await the results of 
the "Preliminary Engineering" study which has yet to get under 
way and which is expected to take approximately one year. 

Second, Frank Wilson, BART's General Manager, has 
publicly predicted completion of a BART station within SFO in 
1997, if there are no delays. A new federal fast-track 
transportation construction program may even hasten this date. 
Information disseminated by Director of Airports Turpen 
erroneously states such completion as 2003. On the other hand, 
Turpen' s estimate of a 1997 completion date for the Automated 
People Mover may be optimistic in light of possible litigation 
sponsored by nearby cities, their residents or any other party 
respecting the Airport's Master Plan. 

Third, I am, indeed, sponsoring an initiative petition to 
extend BART directly within SFO. The basic provision of the 
initiative ordinance sponsored by Kopp's Good Government 



28 



At t achment VI 
Page 2 of 2 



Committee requires that responsible city officials take all 
actions necessary to effectuate the extension of BART service 
into the Airport. The initiative ordinance does not prohibit the 
construction and operation of the Automated People Mover among 
the Airport terminals nor, as Mr. Turpen asserts, does it compel 
the construction of an Airport loop, even though it is the least 
expensive alternative to serve the Airport directly. To fund the 
loop or any other alternative directly serving the Airport, the 
initiative authorises the City to apply to the FAA to impost a 
departure tax, like many other cities already do, of $3.00 or 
less. 

Fourth, Airport officials informed BART officials last 
spring that a Automated People Mover would cost approximately 
$250,000,000, and that segment from the so-called "ground 
transportation center" into the Airport would cost $125,000,000. 
A March, 1991 engineering report by Parsons, Brinckerhoff , 
concludes, contrary to representations falsely made to the Budget 
Analyst, that the piles referred to in the Budget Analyst report, 
can be safely removed without jeopardizing support. 



29 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 2, 1992 

Items 5. 6. 7. and 8 - Files 101-92-13. 100-92-11. 101-92-14 and 100-92-10 



Departments: Water Department 

Hetch Hetchy Water and Power 

Items Item 5 - Supplemental appropriation ordinance (File 101-92- 

13) appropriating $12,020,375 for various capital improvement 
projects, rescinding $4,700,000. 

Item 6 - Motion (File 100-92-11) that the Board of Supervisors 
transfers to the General Fund excess Water Department 
monies, in the amount of $4,700,000, pursuant to San 
Francisco Charter Section 6.407(e), effective July 1, 1992. 

Item 7 - Supplemental appropriation ordinance (File 101-92- 

14) appropriating $10,716,761 for various capital improvement 
projects. 

Item 8 - Motion (File 100-92-10) that the Board of Supervisors 
transfers to the General Fund excess Hetch Hetchy 
Department monies, in the amount of $2,500,000, pursuant to 
San Francisco Charter Section 6.407(e), effective July 1, 1992. 



Source of Funds: 



Item 5 - Water Department 

Unappropriated Fund Balance $7,320,375 

Hetch Hetchy Filtration Project (rescission) 4.700.000 

Total $12,020,375 



Description: 






Item 7 - Hetch Hetchy Water and Power 

Unappropriated Fund Balance $8,216,761 

Sale of Electric Power Revenue 2.500.000 

Total $10,716,761 



Section 6.407(e) of the San Francisco Charter states that, "If 
any accumulation in the surplus fund of any utility shall, in 
any fiscal year, exceed 25 percent of the total expenditures of 
such utility for operation, repairs and maintenance for the 
preceding fiscal year, such excess may be transferred by the 
Board of Supervisors to the General Fund of the City and 
County, and shall be deposited by the (Public Utilities) 
Commission with the Treasurer to the credit of such General 
Fund." 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



30 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 2, 1992 



At the end of fiscal year 1991-92, several Water Department 
and Hetch Hetchy Water and Power capital improvement 
projects were closed or their balances were reduced which 
resulted in surpluses in the Unappropriated Fund Balances 
of the two departments. These surpluses were then available 
for transfer to the General Fund or for appropriation for 
fiscal year 1992-93 capital or operating purposes. 

The proposed supplemental appropriation ordinances would 
reappropriate funds from the Unappropriated Fund 
Balances, from the Hetch Hetchy Filtration Project (a Water 
Department capital improvement project that has a surplus) 
and an increase in the estimated Hetch Hetchy Water and 
Power revenues from the sale of electric power, to the 
following capital improvement projects: 



WATER DEPARTMENT 

New Water Service $3,288,705 

Millbrae Headquarters 2,446,007 

Baden Pipeline 1,055,497 

Noe Valley - Sunset Main 3,387,945 

Groundwater Diesel 1,083,457 

Sunol Water Treatment 758.764 

Total $12,020,375 



HETCH HETCHY WATER AND POWER 

Replace Repair Paint Trolley Poles $740,512 

Tunnels/Pipelines-Moccasin to Alameda 171,728 

Eleanor Dam Repair 482,251 

San Joaquin Pipeline 164,656 

Moccasin Sewage Facility Expansion 620,774 

Septic System Rehabilitation 695,329 

Street Lighting Facility 419,322 

Hetchy Road Maintenance and Rebuilding 1,155,760 

Muni Facility Electric Efficiency 748,806 

Electronics Governor System 557,578 

Moccasin Penstock Saddle Replacement 717,598 

San Joaquin Pipeline Crossing 1,572,705 
Holm Powerhouse Drainage Control System 505,119 

Early Intake Dam: Reconstruct Gates 340,907 

Early Intake (Eleanor) Dam Repairs 423,716 

Priest Outlet and Intake 1.400.000 
Total $10,716,761 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



31 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 2, 1992 



Comment: The Controller's Office has determined that the Water 

Department and Hetch Hetchy Water and Power surplus 
funds met the requirements of Section 6.407(e) on June 30, 
1992 and that a total of $7,200,000 including $4,700,000 from 
the Water Department and $2,500,000 from Hetch Hetchy 
Water and Power surplus funds can be transferred to the 
General Fund pursuant to Section 6.407(e), effective July 1, 
1992. The proposed transfers totaling $7,200,000 would offset 
the City's budgetary shortfall resulting from reduced State 
revenues for fiscal year 1992-93 in accordance with the plan 
proposed by the Mayor's Office and previously considered by 
the Board of Supervisors. The proposed $4,700,000 transfer 
from the Water Department includes a $2,200,000 advance 
from surplus funds in anticipation of the proposed sale of 
Water Department property to the Olympic Club. 

Recommendation; Approve the proposed supplemental appropriation 
ordinances and motions. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

32 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 2, 1992 

Item 9 - File 101-92-12 



Departments: 
Item: 

Amount: 
Source of Funds: 
Description: 






Superior and Municipal Courts 
Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) 

Supplemental appropriation ordinance appropriating 
$335,134 for professional and other contractual services, 
services of other departments - Real Estate, Public Health, 
City Planning, courthouse construction. 

$335,134 

Courthouse Construction Fund 

Currently there are 20 Superior Court and eight Municipal 
Court courtrooms and a jury assembly room in City Hall. All 
criminal courtrooms are at the Hall of Justice including 
eight Superior Court and 15 Municipal Court criminal 
courtrooms. The Superior and Municipal Courts also have 
administrative offices in City Hall. The Superior and 
Municipal Courts occupy approximately 120,000 square feet of 
space at City Hall. The Superior Court also has three 
temporary courts in approximately 8,870 square feet of leased 
space at 575 Polk Street. 

The CAO's Office has devised a plan for making earthquake 
repairs and seismic improvements to City Hall. In order to 
make the earthquake repairs and seismic improvements to 
City Hall, all occupants of City Hall, including the Superior 
and Municipal Courts courtrooms, jury assembly room and 
administrative offices, must be temporarily moved out of City 
Hall. The CAO was previously authorized by the Board of 
Supervisors to negotiate with a private developer to construct 
a new office building at the corner of Polk and McAllister 
Streets (see Comment No. 5). The CAO's present plan 
includes permanently moving the courts currently in City 
Hall into a new courthouse that would be constructed at the 
corner of Polk and McAllister Streets instead of constructing 
a new City office building at that location. When the new 
courthouse is complete (projected completion by 1996 or 1997), 
the City Hall court activities would be permanently moved to 
the new courthouse and the other City Hall offices would be 
temporarily moved to the War Memorial Veterans Building. 

The proposed new courthouse would be six stories high plus 
one basement for courthouse facilities and a second basement 
for parking. The total space for courthouse facilities would be 
approximately 225,000 square feet. 



BOARD OF SUPER VISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



33 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 2, 1992 



As previously noted, the proposed new courthouse would 
occupy the same site that was previously proposed by the 
CAO as a new building to accommodate City offices. The site 
consists of the vacant parcel at the Northwest corner of Polk 
and McAllister Streets (that was previously occupied by a 
service station), the 450 McAllister Street parcel currently 
occupied by the Bureau of Building Inspection and City 
Planning, the 456 McAllister Street parcel currently occupied 
by the California Society of Pioneers' Museum and the 460 
McAllister Street parcel currently occupied by Traffic 
Engineering. The California Society of Pioneers' Museum 
building would be purchased by the City, the Museum would 
be moved to a new location at City expense and the Museum 
building would be demolished (the previous plan to construct 
a new City office building involved bridging the new building 
over the Museum building leaving the Museum building 
intact). The CAO's present plans are to move the current 
occupants of the City's office buildings at 450 and 460 
McAllister Street to the building at 1660 Mission Street in 
order to create a One-Stop Permit Processing Office. The CAO 
has submitted a proposed ordinance to acquire the 1660 
Mission Street building, Item 11, File 172-92-15 of this report. 
The 450 and 460 McAllister Street buildings would be 
demolished. The CAO's Office does not have a substitute plan 
for the development of office space at this time other than to 
use the City Hall space that would be vacated by the courts for 
other City offices. 

The CAO's Office estimates that the total cost of the new 
courthouse would be approximately $50 million that would be 
financed by the sale of Certificates of Participation. A 
Certificate of Participation is an obligation of a public entity 
based on a lease or installment loan agreement. Debt service 
of the Certificates of Participation would be paid from the 
Courthouse Construction Fund (See Comment No. 1). 

The proposed supplemental appropriation would provide for 
start-up costs that would allow the Superior Court to define 
the interior design of the proposed new courthouse. The 
Superior Court's preliminary estimates of start-up costs are 
as follows: 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 2, 1992 



CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 

Project Management $39,667 

A contractor would be selected to perform project 
management services for the proposed 
construction of a new courthouse. The estimated 
amount of $39,667 is based on the salary and 
fringe benefits costs of the City employee acting 
as the project manager for the New Main 
Library project. 

Environmental Impact Report 50,000 

City Planning provided this estimate based on 
the cost of Environmental Impact Reports for 
other, similar projects. 

Attorney's Fees 50,000 

The estimated cost of legal services for 
negotiating a contract for the project manager 
and for environmental matters is based on costs 
that other cities have incurred in constructing 
new courthouses. 

Space Planning Services 75.000 

Courthouse interior space design is a specialty 
within the design field. This funding would 
allow for contracting with a courtroom design 
specialist. 

Subtotal - Contractual Services $214.667 

SERVICES OF OTHER DEPARTMENTS 

Real Estate Department $40,000 

The Real Estate Department will be responsible 
for the acquisition of the Society of California 
Pioneers' Museum property and relocation of the 
museum to another site. This estimate includes 
funding for an independent appraisal ($15,000) of 
the property by an outside appraiser, a special 
museum consultant $5,000) and the services of 
the Real Estate Department staff ($20,000). 

Planning Department 42,000 

City Planning fees are estimated by formula 
based on the estimated total cost of the project. 



BOARD OF SI JPERVLSORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



35 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 2, 1992 



Department of Public Health $8.000 

The Department of Public Health will perform 
an investigation for toxic materials at the four 
parcels. This investigation will determine if 
underground tanks are still located at the 
former service station site, the extent of any soil 
contamination and the cleanup that would be 
required. 

Subtotal- Services of Other Departments $90.000 

CONTINGENCIES $30.467 

The Courts have included an allowance for 
contingencies of ten percent of the total proposed 
supplemental appropriation for start-up costs. 

Total Proposed Supplemental Appropriation $335,134 



Comments: 1. The Courthouse Construction Fund was established 

pursuant to State law. Surcharges on civil and probate filing 
fees, parking fines and criminal fines are deposited into the 
Fund which can only be used for the acquisition, 
rehabilitation, construction and financing of courtrooms, 
courthouses or buildings containing courtrooms. The 
Courthouse Construction Fund had a balance of 
approximately $6.7 million as of July, 1992. 

2. Filing fee and fine surcharges that accrue to the 
Courthouse Construction Fund were recently increased by 
the Board of Supervisors resulting in an approximate $2.3 
million annual increase in the total surcharges accruing to 
the Fund (approximately $2.4 million accrued to the 
Courthouse Construction Fund in FY 1991-92 prior to the 
increase and with the increase, approximately $4.7 million 
will accrue to the Fund, annually beginning in FY 1992-93), 
according to estimates by the Superior Court. 

3. The Courthouse Construction Fund was the source of 
funding for the renovations to the leased space at 575 Polk 
Street for three temporary courtrooms required to reduce the 
backlog of cases. A total of approximately $1.2 million has 
been appropriated by the Board of Supervisors for renovations 
and startup costs of the three temporary courtrooms at 575 
Polk Street. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



36 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 2, 1992 



4. Over the last two years, the City has purchased options to 
allow for the future purchase of the air rights over the 
California Society of Pioneers' Museum building that would 
be required in order to construct a new City office building 
over the Museum building. The City has paid a total of 
$57,600 for the air rights options for the two years ending 
December 31, 1992. The air rights over the Museum building 
may not be needed under the CAO's new plan if the Museum 
building can be purchased and then demolished. 

5. The Board of Supervisors previously authorized the CAO to 
negotiate for development of a new office building at the Polk 
and McAllister Streets site with the firm of 450 McAllister 
Associates. However, because of the new proposal to develop a 
courthouse instead of an office building, 450 McAllister 
Associates and the two other developers that submitted 
proposals, but were not selected, will be asked to advise the 
CAO as to how development of a courthouse would differ 
from development of an office building. If, based on the 
developers' advice, the CAO determines that there is a 
significant difference, the three developers will be asked 
submit new proposals based on the development of a new 
courthouse. The CAO's Office will reconvene its Selection 
Advisory Committee and, with advice from the Human 
Rights Commission, will evaluate and select one of the new 
proposals for development of the proposed new courthouse. If 
one of the other developers (other than 450 McAllister 
Associates) is selected, the CAO will seek Board of 
Supervisors approval for authority to negotiate for 
development of a new courthouse. 

6. The CAO's Office reports that none of the contractors have 
been selected for the Contractual Services budgeted at 
$214,667 or for the independent appraiser ($15,000) and 
museum consultant ($5,000) to be retained by the Real Estate 
Department. Therefore the proposed supplemental 
appropriation ordinance should be amended to reserve a total 
of $234,667 ($214,667 for contractual services, $15,000 for the 
independent appraiser and $5,000 for the museum 
consultant) pending selection of the contractors and 
determination of their professional hours, hourly billing 
rates and MBE/WBE status. 

7. Although it is normal to include funding for contingencies 
during the construction phase of a project, usually ten 
percent of the construction amount, the inclusion of funding 
for contingencies at this preliminary phase is not normal. 
The proposed supplemental appropriation ordinance should 
be amended to eliminate the proposed funding for 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



37 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 2, 1992 

contingencies in the amount of $30,467, which was based on 
ten percent of the total requested funding for this phase of the 
project. 

8. Because the Board of Supervisors' previous authorization 
for the CAO to negotiate with 450 McAllister Associates was 
for the development of an office building and not for the 
development of a courthouse, the proposed supplemental 
appropriation ordinance should be amended to stipulate that 
the CAO will obtain Board of Supervisors authorization to 
negotiate with the developer that may be subsequently 
selected to develop the proposed new courthouse. 

Recommendations: 1. Approval of the proposed supplemental appropriation 
ordinance to appropriate funding for the first stages of 
building a new courthouse is a policy matter for the Board of 
Supervisors. As previously noted, the CAO's former proposal 
was to build a City-owned office building. A City-owned office 
building was expected to have resulted in significant savings 
to the City by eliminating various leased facilities currently 
housing numerous City employees. 

2. Should the Board of Supervisors approve the proposed 
supplemental appropriation ordinance, it should be first 
amended to a) eliminate the request for $30,467 for 
contingencies resulting in a reduction in the total amount of 
funding by $30,467 from $335,134 to $304,667, b) reserve a total 
of $234,667, as detailed in Comment 6, above and c) to 
stipulate that the CAO will obtain Board of Supervisors 
authorization to negotiate with the developer that may be 
subsequently selected to develop the proposed new 
courthouse. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

38 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 2, 1992 

ItemlQ -File 63-92-12 



Department 
Item: 



Grant Amount: 
Source of Grant 
Grant Period: 
Project 

Description: 



Mayor's Office/Mayor's Criminal Justice Council 

Resolution amending Resolutions 858-90 and 116-91, which 
had previously authorized the Mayor to apply for, accept and 
expend funds in the amount of $721,186, as made available 
through the Federal Office for Substance Abuse Prevention 
for a project entitled "The Community Partnership 
Program." The proposed resolution would authorize the 
Mayor to apply for, accept, and expend funds in the amount 
of $1,273,997. 

$1,273,997 

Federal Office for Substance Abuse Prevention (OSAP) 

January 1, 1993 to December 31, 1993 

Community Partnership Program 

The Community Partnership Program (CPP) is a City-wide 
neighborhood and youth-oriented substance abuse prevention 
program which began in October 1990 through funding 
provided by the Federal Office of Substance Abuse Prevention 
(OSAP). OSAP will provide $1,273,997 in Federal fiscal year 
1992-93, which will fund the grant program during calendar 
year 1993. 

The Community Partnership Program consists of several 
components, including the Neighborhood Empowerment 
Program, which facilitates the efforts of parents, youth, and 
neighborhood residents to develop community drug 
prevention strategies in 17 City neighborhoods; the Mayor's 
Youth Forum, which provides youth with leadership and 
problem-solving skills; and the Mayor's Drug Prevention 
Task Force, composed of 20 citizens who oversee the project 
and advise the Mayor concerning substance abuse 
prevention. 

The Mayor's Office provides services to 8 of the 17 
neighborhoods involved in the Neighborhood Empowerment 
Program. The remaining 9 neighborhoods participate in the 
program through a sub-grant by the Mayor's Office to the 
Japanese Community Youth Council (JCYC), which 
administers the program under the name "Neighborhoods in 
Transition - A Multicultural Partnership." This division of 
responsibility resulted because JCYC qualified for OSAP 
funding a year after the Mayor's Office qualified for funding. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



39 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 2, 1992 



Budget 



The funding for JCYC was therefore appended to the Mayor's 
Office grant in late 1991. 

The proposed resolution would authorize the Mayor to apply 
for, accept and expend grant funds in the amount of 
$1,273,997 by amending previous resolutions of the Board of 
Supervisors which authorized the Mayor to apply for, accept 
and expend $721,186 in grant funds for 1991 (see Comment 6). 



Personnel 


FTE 


Amount 


Principal Investigator 


1.0 


$70,737 


Partnership Project Director 


1.0 


54,855 


Empowerment Coordinator 


1.0 


46,417 


Youth Forum Coordinator 


1.0 


45,188 


Senior Epidemiologist 


1.0 


42,900 


Project Evaluation Research Assistant 


U2 


41.800 


Subtotal 


6.0 


$301^97 


Fringe Benefits (@ 11 percent) 




33,334 


Total Personnel 






Operating Expenses 






Supplies 




$10,000 


Travel 




5000 


Total Operating Costs 






Contractual Services 







Neighborhoods in Transition 
Empowerment Funds 
Training - Mayor's Youth Forum 
Mandatory Audit 

Total Contractual Services 

Total Direct Cost 

Indirect Cost 

Total Grant Amount 



$624,000 

196,000 

63,605 

5000 



$335,231 



15,000 



$1^38,836 

35.161 

$1^73,997 



Required Match: None 

Indirect Costs: Indirect costs were negotiated with OSAP in the amount of 

$35,161, which is approximately 5.4 percent of $649,997, 
which is the total grant amount ($1,273,997), exclusive of 
funding for the Neighborhoods in Transition program 
operated by the JCYC ($624,000). 

Comments: 1. The Mayor's Office reports that OSAP has indicated its 

intention to fund the Community Partnership Program for a 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



40 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 2, 1992 



five year period. The project began October 1, 1990, and is 
expected to continue through September 30, 1995. According 
to Mr. Keith Choy of the Mayor's Office, an application for 
continued funding must be submitted annually, and the 
Mayor's Office applied for the proposed funding for 1993 in 
June, 1992. Therefore, the proposed resolution should be 
amended to ratify actions previously taken. 

2. The budget submitted by the Mayor's Office includes 
average fringe benefits of only 11 percent of salary because 
officials in the Mayor's Office who are exempt from Civil 
Service requirements receive fewer benefits than Civil Service 
employees, according to Mr. Choy. 

3. The $196,000 in Empowerment Funds will be awarded to 
community-based organizations to develop networks and 
strategies for drug intervention efforts by neighborhood 
residents in 8 neighborhoods targeted by the Mayor's Office. 
These neighborhoods are the Western Addition, the 
Tenderloin, Potrero Hill, the Mission District, 
Bayview/Hunter's Point, Visitacion Valley/Sunnydale, 
Oceanview-Merced-Ingleside, and Chinatown. 

Mr. Choy reports that a Request for Proposal was issued in 
September, 1992 and that a number of agencies have 
responded, but that a final determination has not been made 
regarding which agencies will receive the Empowerment 
Funds. The Empowerment Funds in the amount of $196,000 
should therefore be placed on reserve pending the 
identification of the community-based organizations which 
will conduct the Neighborhood Empowerment Program. 

Mr. Choy reports that the Empowerment Funds for 1993 will 
be augmented by approximately $350,000 in grant funds 
which will be carried forward from 1992. 

4. The $624,000 allocated as contractual services for the 
Neighborhood in Transition Program will fund services 
provided by the Japanese Community Youth Council in 9 
additional City neighborhoods. These neighborhoods are 
South of Market, Haight Ashbury, Sunset, Richmond, Hayes 
Valley, Japantown, North Beach, Bernal Heights, and 
Diamond Heights. JCYC has provided these services since 
late 1991, and is reimbursed by the Mayor's Office for its 
expenses in conducting the program. 

5. The project budget also includes $63,605 to provide stipends 
to youth who participate in workshops and community 
activities sponsored by the Mayor's Youth Forum. Each 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



hi 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 2, 1992 



youth is enrolled for a one-year internship beginning in 
September and receives a stipend of $5.00/hour. 

6. The proposed resolution, which would result in $1,273,997 
in grant funds, would amend two previous resolutions of the 
Board of Supervisors which concerned funding for the 
Community Partnership Program. Resolution 858-90, 
adopted October 22, 1990, authorized the Mayor to apply for, 
accept, and expend $500,000 for the Community Partnership 
Program for the period October 1, 1990 through September 30, 
1991. Resolution 116-91, adopted January 30, 1991, amended 
Resolution 858-90 by increasing the amount the Mayor was 
authorized to apply for, accept, and expend from $500,000 to 
$721,186, and extending the grant period by three additional 
months, to December 31, 1991. In other words, these 
previously adopted resolutions authorized a total of $721,186 
for calendar year 1991, which was the first year of the project. 

The effect of adopting the proposed resolution as written 
would be to change the dollar amount of the grant authorized 
for 1991 from $721,186 to $1,273,997, in order to reflect the 
proposed grant amount for 1993. However, the Budget 
Analyst notes that Resolutions 858-90 and 116-91 were 
previously amended by Resolution 931-91 in October, 1991 to 
reflect supplemental funds for this grant program, and that 
Resolution 931-91 was itself amended in February, 1992 (File 
68-92-1) to reflect continuation funds for 1992. 

The Budget Analyst believes that it is not necessary for the 
proposed resolution, which would authorize grant funding 
for 1993, to amend Resolutions 858-90 and 116-91, which 
authorized grant funding for 1991. Adopting such a 
continuing series of amendments to the original resolutions 
over the 5 years of the grant program will tend to confuse the 
record of the Board of Supervisors authorizations for these 
grant funds. 

Therefore, the proposed resolution should be amended to 
delete references to previous resolutions. Since the Mayor's 
Office has already applied to OSAP for grant funds for 1993, 
the proposed resolution should also be amended to ratify 
actions previously taken. In addition, the proposed resolution 
should be amended to reflect indirect costs in the amount of 
$35,161. 

The title of the proposed resolution should read as follows: 



BOARD OF S UPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

42 



1 Memo to Finance Committee 
December 2, 1992 



Authorizing the Mayor to apply for, accept, and expend 
funds in the amount of $1,273,997, as made available 
through the Federal Office for Substance Abuse 
Prevention, for a project entitled, "The Community 
Partnership Program," which includes indirect costs 
in the amount of $35,161; and ratifying actions 
previously taken. 

The body of the proposed resolution should be amended as 
follows: 

1) At page 1, by deleting lines 15 through 24, and substituting 
the words, "WHEREAS, the Federal government has advised 
the City that $1,273,997 will be available to the City for the 
period January 1, 1993 through December 31, 1993, which 
includes indirect costs of $35,161; now therefore be it..." 

2) At page 2, lines 2 and 3, by deleting the words, "hereby 
amends Resolutions No. 858-90 and 116-91 to authorize and 
direct the Mayor to apply for, accept, and expend," and 
substituting the words, "hereby authorizes and directs the 
Mayor to apply for, accept, and expend..." 

3) At page 2, line 6, by deleting the words "and, be it," and 
substituting the words "and ratifies actions previously 
taken." 

4) At page 2, by deleting lines 7 through 9, which provide that 
except for the amendments included in the proposed 
resolution, the previous resolutions remain in full force and 
effect. 

7. Attached is the Summary of Grant Request submitted by 
the Mayor's Office. 

8. Mr. Choy states that disability access checklists will be 
prepared for the community based agencies that receive 
$196,000 in funding for the Neighborhood Empowerment 
Program in 1993, as a provision of receiving grant funds. 
However, Mr. Choy states that these checklists are not 
available at this time, since the Mayor's Office has not 
reached a final determination concerning which agencies 
will receive funding. Therefore, the $196,000 for the 
Neighborhood Empowerment Program should be reserved 
pending identification of the agencies to perform services and 
submission of disability access checklists for these agencies 
to the Board of Supervisors. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

43 



'Memo to Finance Committee 
December 2, 1992 

Recommendations: 1. Amend the proposed resolution as described in Comment 
6 above, in order to avoid amending previous resolutions 
which authorized grant funds for 1991, to include indirect 
costs, and to ratify actions previously taken to apply for the 
continuation grant. 

2. Amend the proposed resolution to reserve $196,000 in 
Empowerment Funds pending identification of the 
community-based organizations that will provide services, 
and submission of disability access checklists for these 
agencies. 

3. Approve the proposed resolution, as amended. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

44 



File Number 



lib-nl* \1 



Grant Application Information Form 



A document required to accompany a proposed resolution,? 

Authorizing a Department to Apply for a Grant ~ t 3& >■. r 



To: The Board of Supervisors 
Attn: Clerk of the Board ■- 

The following describes the grant referred to in the accompanying 

resolution: 



Department: MAYOR'S CRIMINAL JUSTICE COUNCIL 



Contact Person: KEITH CHOY Telephone: (415) 554-6 558 

Project Title: EMPOWERING PARENTS AND YOUTH PROJECT, COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP 
Grant Source: FEDERAL OFFICE OF SUBSTANCE ABUSE PREVENTION, DEPT OF HEALTH 
Proposed (New / Continuation) Grant Project Summary: 
(SEE ATTACHED) 



Amount of Grant Funding Applied for: $1 ,273,997 



Maximum Funding Amount Available: $1 .273 .997 
Reguired Matching Funds: none 



Number of Positions Created and Funded: 



Amount to be Spent on Contractual Services: $825,000 



Will Contractual Services be put out to Bid? $196,000 will be put out to bid 



45 



Grant Application Information Form 
Page 2 



Term of Grant: BUDGET PERIOD 01/01/93 - 12/31/93 " ^-- v 

Date Department Notified of Available funds: 09/30/92 - Grand Awar ded 

Application Due Date: JUNE 30. 1992 . " - 

Grant Funding Guidelines and Options (from RFP, grant announcement or 
appropriations legislation): 

This is a continuation grant application for the Federal Community 
Partnership Program, funded by the Federal Office for Substance Abuse 
Prevention, made available through the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988. 

The Community Partnership Program is designed to provide training 
technical assistance leadership development and community organizing to 
neighborhoods to prevent the incidence of substance abuse. 



Hm^fkam. 




Department Head Approval 



46 



PROJECT SUMMARY 



The City and County of San Francisco, through the Mayor's Criminal Justice 
Council, and the Mayor's Drug Prevention Task Force, continued to expand and 
improve on numerous partnerships in a coordinated city wide effort to reduce 
the incidence of alcohol and substance abuse. The Project is a five year project 
funded by the Federal Office of Substance Abuse Prevention. The Community 
Partnership Project legislation emphasizes the development of a variety of 
Prevention and self-help approaches needed in a city of great economic and 
cultural diversity. 

The Empowering Parents and Youth Community Partnership Project (EPY) will 
continue to provide opportunities for neighborhoods to devise solutions to 
change factors that contribute to substance abuse, open up ways youth may 
participate in the public problem solving process, coordinate shared work among 
city departments and community based agencies, and provide support for parent 
organizations, during its third year. 

The EPY project is designed to target services to eight neighborhoods : Bayview 
Hunters Point, Potrero Hill, Chinatown, Mission, Visitacion Valley, Tenderloin, 
Western Addition, and the Ocean vie w-Merced-Inglside(OMI). 

With the awarding of the grant to the City and County of San Francisco to the 
Neighborhood in Transition- A Multi- Cultural Partnership Project (NIT- AMP) 
in October 1991, the Empowering Parents and Youth Project now provided an 
array of partnership prevention activities in seventeen neighborhoods. 

The key significant program are: 

•The Mayor's Youth Forum (MYF), equips neighborhood youth 
with leadership and empowerment skills to assist in the problem solving process 
of the City and the neighborhoods. The Mayor's Youth Forum, now has 
expanded its capacity to develop neighborhood youth forums and councils. 

•The creative and urgent efforts of neighbors, parents, and youth, in a 
variety of neighborhood based strategies and actions, through our Neighborhood 
Empowerment Program (NEP). 

• The Mayor's Drug Prevention Task Force, is composed of twenty 
. citizens appointed by the Mayor to oversee the project and provide policy 
recommendations regarding substance abuse prevention. 



47 



In September of 1992, the Mayor officially appointed a new Mayor's Drug 
Prevention Task Force. The twenty member citizen group reflects the 
cultural diversity of the City and provides a wealth of experiences in 
neighborhoods, youth work and prevention activities. The new task force 
will provide annual policy recommendations to the mayor, review related 
policy papers, and to support the efforts of the Community Partnership 
program. 



•The development of the Neighborhoods In Transition -A Multi-Cultural 
Partnership( NTT-AMP) now expands our community partnership efforts to nine 
additional neighborhoods: Hayes Valley, Diamond Heights/Glen Park, Bernal 
Heights, Haight, Richmond, Sunset, Japan town, North Beach, and South of 
Market. The project is administered by the Japanese Community Youth Council. 

The nine new neighborhoods represent an important trend of the future; 
the cultural diversity of each neighborhood re-frames the way citizens 
must work and plan together. While in the past, these nine 
neighborhoods, represented one or two dominant ethnic/ racial 
populations, the challenge for the NIT- AMP program is to bring these 
changing neighborhoods of many cultures together to identify and solve 
common problems around substance abuse. 

•To improve city wide planning and coordination, the coordination of 
Community Partnership efforts with the County Health Department's 
Community Substance Abuse Services Division, to develop a County-wide 
Master Plan Process mandated by the State Alcohol and Drug Abuse Division. 



UR 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 2, 1992 

Items 11 and 12 -Files 172-92-15 and 97-92-61 

Note: These items were continued at the November 18, 1992 Recessed 
Finance Committee Meeting. 

Departments: Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) 

Items: File 172-92-15, a proposed ordinance, contains the following 

provisions: 

(1) Approving and authorizing the execution and delivery of an agreement 
of purchase and sale for real estate (including certain indemnities and 
the release of the seller contained therein); 

(2) Approving and authorizing (a) an assignment of purchase for sale of 
real estate; (b) a facilities lease (including certain indemnities contained 
therein); (c) a trust agreement (including certain indemnities contained 
therein); and (d) an official statement; 

(3) Authorizing the distribution of an official notice inviting bids in 
connection with the City and County of San Francisco Certificates of 
Participation (1660 Mission Street Project) Series 1993; 

(4) Authorizing the Chief Administrative Officer to fix rents to be charged 
and to submit budgets for approval; 

(5) Authorizing and ratifying execution of documents reasonably 
necessary for the execution, delivery and sale of the Certificates of 
Participation; and 

(6) Adopting findings pursuant to City Planning Code Section 101.1, all in 
connection with the acquisition and leasing of the 1660 Mission Street 
property. 

File 97-92-61 is a proposed ordinance amending the San 
Francisco Administrative Code by adding Chapter 10F 
thereof to establish a surcharge on plan, permit, 
environmental review, and related fees to recover costs for 
acquiring office space at 1660 Mission Street. 

Location: 1660 Mission Street 

Purpose of 

Purchase: To purchase a building as a location for a "One Stop Permit 

Shop" for building permits, i.e., to consolidate Bureau of 
Building Inspection, Planning Department, and Fire 
Department permit processes at a single location. 

Seller: Paul B. Andrew, bankruptcy trustee appointed by the court to 

oversee the asset 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

49 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 2, 1992 



Developer: 
No. of Sq. Ft: 
Total Cost 



Source of Funds: 



Description: 



The Derringer Group 

97,536 gross square feet; 66,987 net rentable square feet 

$5,700,000 

($85.09 per net rentable square foot; however, see Comment 11 

regarding an additional cost of $3.5 million for tenant 

improvements) 

Surcharge on plan, permit, environmental review, and 
related fees, collected by various departments, to support debt 
service for Certificates of Participation 

Currently, persons or companies wishing to build or remodel 
in San Francisco must visit up to four locations to receive 
permit approval: City-owned 450 McAllister, which houses 
the Department of City Planning, the DPW Bureau of 
Building Inspection, and certain Fire Department employees 
with permit responsibility; City Hall, which houses the DPW 
Division of Surveys and Maps; leased space at 524 Golden 
Gate, which houses employees of the Bureau of Building 
Inspection responsible for Plumbing and Electrical Permits; 
and leased space at Fox Plaza, which houses the code 
enforcement portion of the DPW Bureau of Building 
Inspection. 

The proposed ordinance would support the purchase of 1660 
Mission Street, an office building containing 66,987 rentable 
square feet of unfinished space, at a cost of approximately 
$5.7 million. The building would be used to establish a "One 
Stop Permit Shop" (i.e., to consolidate Bureau of Building 
Inspection, Planning Department, and Fire Department 
permit processes at a single location instead of in the four 
current locations). 1660 Mission Street was completed to core 
and shell condition in mid- 1991 and is a six-story steel frame 
office building with a one level subterranean garage. 
Included in the purchase price of this building is an adjacent 
vacant lot containing approximately 5,080 square feet, which 
will be used for parking. 

The proposed purchase of 1660 Mission Street is to be 
financed with Series 1993 Certificates of Participation. 
Certificates of Participation are proportionate interests in the 
lease-purchase of property, which are sold to investors. The 
investors would receive a return on their investment through 
the lease payments made by the City. The City would assign 
its rights under the Purchase and Sale Agreement to a 
trustee, who would issue the Certificates of Participation. 
The City would then be obligated to make lease payments to 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



50 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 2, 1992 



the trustee to repay the holders of the Certificates of 
Participation. 

To support these Certificates of Participation, the CAO 
proposes to implement a surcharge on the following 
categories of fees: 

(a) Plan Review Fees; 

(b) Building Code Fees; 

(c) Public Works fees; 

(d) Planning Code fees; 

(e) A(lministrative Code fees. 

All of these fees would be increased, through a surcharge, as 
follows: 

(1) 3 percent for the period commencing July 1, 1993 through 
June 30, 1995; 

(2) a total of 4.5 percent for the period commencing July 1, 
1995 through June 30, 2000; and 

(3) a total of 6.5 percent for the period commencing July 1, 
2000 through June 30, 2005. 

Effective July 1, 2005, the surcharge would expire. 

The exact amount of the increase in fees, representing a 
surcharge, would vary depending on the size and complexity 
of the project, Mr. Larry Litchfield of the Bureau of Building 
Inspection reports. Based on estimated average sizes for 
small, medium and large jobs, Mr. Don McConlogue of the 
BBI reports that this surcharge would result in the following 
dollar costs: 

(1) 53 percent of permits consist of small residential projects, 
with an average value of $5,800. Such projects would result in 
a surcharge of $4.53 in the first period; $6.80 in the second 
period; and $9.82 in the third period; 

(2) 42 percent of permits consist of medium sized residential 
or commercial projects, with an average value of $47,000. 
Such projects would result in a surcharge of $42.83 in the 
first period; $64.25 in the second period; and $92.80 in the 
third period; 

(3) .1 percent of permits consist of large commercial projects, 
with an average value of $402,000. Such a project would result 
in a surcharge of $198.88 in the first period, $298.32 in the 
second period; and $430.90 in the third period. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



51 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 2, 1992 



Mr. McConlogue reports that the remaining approximately 5 
percent of permits include miscellaneous projects whose fees 
are consistent with the fees noted above. 

Fees are based on the valuation of a construction project, Mr. 
McConlogue advises. According to Mr. Fred Weiner of the 
CAO's Office, these surcharges are structured so as to result 
in revenues equal to the total debt service over the financing 
period, including the purchase price of the building, at $5.7 
million, and tenant improvements, at $3.5 million, for a total 
of $9.2 million plus financing costs of approximately $1.87 
million, for a total of $11.07 million plus interest. 

Comments: 1. According to Mr. Litchfield, 1660 Mission includes six 

floors, which would be used as follows: 

First Floor: 

to include 95 parking spaces, to be made available for public 
parking; and public information booths where seven 
employees would provide information regarding the status of 
an application, code interpretations, zoning and Fire Code 
information, etc. 

Second Floor: 

to include the permit center and the construction services 

center. 

Third and Fourth Floor: 

to include the building, electrical, plumbing, housing and 

code enforcement sections, including all inspectors. 

Fifth Floor: 

to include the administrative offices for the various applicable 

departments. 

Sixth Floor: 

to include offices for agency heads, Planning Commission 
meeting rooms, employee meeting rooms, other meeting 
room space, and an employee lunch room. (Note: The Budget 
Analyst questions the necessity of a lunch room.) 

2. Mr. Weiner advises that approximately 300 employees, now 
occupying the four different locations noted in the description 
above, would relocate to 1660 Mission Street. According to Mr. 
DeLucchi, Director of Property, 450 McAllister consists of 
approximately 40,000 square foot, while the remaining three 
locations consist of approximately 8,300 square feet, for a total 
of 48,300 square feet. 1660 Mission Street contains 66,987 
rentable square feet, representing an increase of 18,687 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



52 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 2, 1992 



square feet, or approximately 39 percent. Each employee 
would occupy an average of 223 square feet, including a 
portion of public meeting rooms and interview rooms, 
whereas presently each employee occupies an average of 146 
square feet. Mr. DeLucchi advises that current conditions are 
overcrowded, and that the new space would also include 
meeting and interview rooms not currently in place. 

3. Mr. Litchfield anticipates a 20 percent improvement in 
efficiency as a result of the proposed "One Stop Permit Shop." 
This 20 percent improvement in efficiency is based on the 
experiences of Phoenix, Arizona, and San Diego, California, 
where the consolidation of permit processing has resulted in 
a 20 percent reduction in permit processing time. However, 
there is no documentation as to the percentage of efficiency 
that would be achieved in San Francisco. Mr. Litchfield 
advises that, based on meetings with permit applicants, most 
permit applicants who have been in contact with the 
departments have indicated a willingness to pay increased 
fees in exchange for reduced permit processing time. 
However, there is no documentation as to whether such 
applicants, who have been in contact with the various 
departments, are representative of all of the applicants on an 
annual basis. Currently, permit processing time takes from 
one day for small remodeling projects, such as kitchen 
remodeling, reroofing, or window replacement, to 90 days for 
large construction projects. 

4. Mr. Litchfield advises that because of the increased 
efficiency, the various departments would be able to process a 
larger number of permits in the proposed new building with 
the same number of employees. Therefore, the proposed new 
building would accommodate any growth in permit requests 
in future years, Mr. Litchfield reports. 

5. According to Mr. Litchfield, if the proposed "One Stop 
Permit Shop" is established at 1660 Mission, the permit 
application process would be restructured. Instead of 
applicants submitting applications in writing which are later 
reviewed by permit processors, applicants would meet with 
permit processors to review applications in person. This new 
process is anticipated to result in substantial increased 
efficiencies beyond the anticipated 20 percent increased 
efficiency noted above, Mr. Litchfield reports. 

6. Mr. Litchfield reports that, in accordance with a 1989 
recommendation by the Budget Analyst, permit processing 
has already been somewhat consolidated into a Construction 
Services Center at 450 McAllister. The Construction Services 
Center consists of two City Planning employees, two Fire 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



53 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 2, 1992 



Department employees, and two Surveys and Mapping 
employees who provide information to the public. Mr. 
Litchfield advises that this consolidation has resulted in the 
ability to issue permits over the counter for small residential 
improvement projects. However, due to space limitations at 
450 McAllister, most employees who carry out permit 
processing functions are located on a number of different 
floors. As of the writing of this report, the Budget Analyst has 
not been provided with any documentation regarding 
increased efficiency as a result of the Construction Services 
Center. 

7. According to Mr. Weiner, savings from terminating the 
lease at 524 Golden Gate and at Fox Plaza would total 
approximately $128,868 per year, including $46,068 for Fox 
Plaza and $82,800 at 524 Golden Gate. Mr. Weiner advises 
that these leases will terminate prior to the proposed 
occupation of 1660 Mission Street. Future additional rental 
costs would be avoided when the employees were moved to 
1660 Mission Street from the City-owned 450 McAllister, 
because this would enable City Hall employees to relocate to 
450 McAllister during seismic renovations at City Hall, 
instead of relocating to rented spaces, Mr. Litchfield advises. 

8. Mr. Weiner reports that the CAO had previously 
considered constructing a new building on the City-owned 
450 McAllister site and adjoining lots. However, Mr. Weiner 
advises that the cost of constructing a new building at that 
site would be approximately $60 to $70 million. That site is 
now proposed as a possible location for a new courthouse, to 
be funded from the Courthouse Construction Fund, Ms. Kate 
Harrison of the Superior Court advises. 

9. Mr. Litchfield reports that several alternative locations 
were investigated for possible rental rather than purchase, 
including the Coca Cola Building on 11th Street, 614 Van 
Ness at Golden Gate. However, these buildings would be 
costly to rent. In addition, these buildings are not seismically 
sound or handicapped accessible, and would therefore 
require substantial improvements, Mr. Litchefield reports. 
According to Mr. DeLucchi, 1660 Mission Street was 
constructed in accordance with the seismic safety standards 
as set forth in the 1979 Uniform Building Code, as mandated 
by the Board of Supervisors in January, 1984. The building is 
also handicapped accessible, in accordance with Title 24 of 
the State Code. 

10. According to Mr. DeLucchi, construction on 1660 Mission 
began four years ago. One year ago, after the Darringer 
Group declared bankruptcy, the building came into the 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

54 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 2, 1992 



jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court. The City has negotiated 
to pay $5,700,000 for 1660 Mission, less outstanding fees owed 
to the City in the amount of $455,000 for affordable housing. 
These fees would be paid by the City from an escrow account. 
The seller would receive the remaining $5,245,000. 

11. If the proposed ordinance is approved, Mr. Litchfield 
anticipates that tenant improvements would be completed 
and the building could be occupied by January 1, 1994. Such 
tenant improvements would cost approximately $3.5 million. 
The estimated $3.5 million in tenant improvements would be 
in addition to the proposed purchase price of $5.7 million, for 
a total acquisition price for 1660 Mission Street of $9.2 million, 
which would be paid from the Certificates of Participation 
plus interest. Tenant improvements consist of constructing 
walls, partitions, installing heat, ventilation, and air 
conditioning, carpeting, etc. Moving costs are included in the 
budget for tenant improvements, Mr. Weiner reports. The 
funds for these tenant improvements would come from the 
sale of the Certificates of Participation noted above, which 
would be repaid from the fee surcharges. 

12. According to Mr. DeLucchi, tenant improvements would 
need to be completed at any facility occupied by the City. The 
cost of such improvements would vary based on the 
negotiations with the seller or renter, according to Mr. 
DeLucchi. 

13. Mr. DeLucchi advises that the cost to the City of 
constructing a new building comparable to the present 1660 
Mission Street building is estimated to be approximately 
$11,803,900, (including approximately $10,725,000 (based on 
$110 per gross square foot times approximately 97,500 square 
feet) for the building alone, plus approximately $1,078,800 for 
the land (based on $60 per square foot times 17,980 total 
square feet of land)) or over twice the cost of the proposed 
acquisition of 1660 Mission Street for $5,700,000. Tenant 
improvements, which are budgeted for 1660 Mission at 
approximately $3.5 million in addition to the purchase price, 
would be in addition to construction and land costs for a new 
building. Therefore, the estimated cost of constructing a new 
building is approximately $15,303,900 plus interest 
(assuming that tenant improvement costs for a new building 
would be $3.5 million), or approximately $6,103,900, or 66 
percent more than purchasing 1660 Mission Street, which is 
estimated to cost $9.2 million, including tenant 
improvements. Financing costs for this new building would 
be higher than comparable costs to acquire 1660 Mission 
because the total Certificates of Participation issue would be 
higher. Mr. Weiner advises that the Derringer Group and 

BOARD OF SUPERVLSORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



55 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 2, 1992 

related financing institutions invested approximately $17 
million in the construction of 1660 Mission Street. 

14. Mr. Litchfield advises that the City's permit processing 
procedures are anticipated to be improved because a new 
employee with inter-departmental authority is being hired to 
coordinate permit processing. A new classification for this 
position has been approved by the Civil Service Commission 
and has been included in the FY 1992-93 budget. The new 
position will also be the person responsible for coordinating 
the Construction Services Center. If the proposed ordinance 
is approved, this new position would be instrumental in 
laying out and formalizing the permit processing plans at 
1660 Mission Street, Mr. Litchfield reports. 

15. The Budget Analyst notes that the departments have no 
documentation supporting anticipated increased efficiency or 
reduced rental costs. Therefore, the Budget Analyst 
recommends that, if the Board of Supervisors approves this 
proposed ordinance, the various departments be required to 
present an annual report to the Board of Supervisors 
documenting increased efficiency, reduced rental costs, and 
any other relevant information as a result of the proposed 
building purchase. 

16. The CAO has introduced an Amendment of the Whole for 
the proposed ordinance (File 172-92-15) that would allow the 
CAO to negotiate the sale of the Certificates of Participation to 
an underwriter, if such a negotiation would be in the best 
interests of the City. However, the CAO currently anticipates 
competitively bidding the Certificates of Participation unless 
the market changes significantly over the next few months. 

Recommendations: (1) Amend the proposed ordinance to require annual reports 
documenting improvements in efficiency, reduced rental 
costs, and any other relevant information as a result of the 
proposed building purchase. (File 172-92-15) 

(2) Approval of the proposed ordinance, as amended, is a 
policy matter for the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SI JPERVLSORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

56 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 2, 1992 

Item 13 . File 170-92-12 

Department: Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) 

Item: Resolution declaring the official intent of the City and County 

of San Francisco to reimburse funds to itself from proceeds of 
taxable or tax-exempt indebtedness (bonds) for certain 
expenditures (bond administration expenditures) incurred 
before the bonds are sold in connection with 1) providing 
loans for the seismic strengthening of unreinforced masonry 
buildings devoted to affordable housing and to market-rate 
residential, commercial and institutional uses and 2) the 
construction and reconstruction of Fire Department 
facilities. (The CAO will introduce an Amendment of the 
Whole to delete the first application, number 1, above, 
pertaining to loans for seismic strengthening of unreinforced 
masonry buildings. The description below pertains only to the 
construction and reconstruction of Fire Department 
facilities.) 

Description: In November, 1992 the citizens of San Francisco approved a 

$40.8 million General Obligation Bond measure (Proposition 
C). The $40.8 million includes $40.0 million for the 
construction and reconstruction of Fire Department facilities 
including seismic strengthening, asbestos abatement, 
disabled access and separate bathroom and changing areas 
for male and female firefighters and $800,000 for bond 
administration costs incurred by the City Attorney and the 
Chief Administrative Officer. 

Ms. Laura Wagner-Lockwood of the CAO's Office reports that 
the $40.8 million in bonds for the Fire Department will be sold 
in April, 1993. Ms Wagner-Lockwood will make an estimate 
of bond administration costs when bond council is selected 
and will request a supplemental appropriation ordinance at 
that time. The funds obtained with the supplemental 
appropriation for up-front bond administration costs would 
be reimbursed from the bond proceeds when the bonds are 
sold. 

Chief James Lynch of the Fire Department indicates that 
there are no funds in the Fire Department's 1992-93 budget 
that can be used for bond administration costs. Therefore, 
any up-front funds must be appropriated by supplemental 
appropriation and reimbursed from bond proceeds. 

U. S. Internal Revenue Service regulations require that the 
City must declare its official intent to reimburse itself for any 

BOARD OF SUPERVLSORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



57 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 2, 1992 

expenditures that are to be financed by the proceeds of bonds 
but are incurred before the bonds have been sold. 

Comments: The proposed resolution declaring the City's official intent to 

reimburse itself does not bind the City to make any 
expenditure, incur any indebtedness or proceed with any 
capital projects. 

Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



58 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 2, 1992 

Item 14 - File 68-92-11 



Department: 
Item: 



Grant Amount: 



Grant Period: 
Source of Funds: 
Project: 



Mayor 

Resolution authorizing the Mayor of the City and County of 
San Francisco to apply for, accept and expend funds in the 
amount of $1,062,500 in Grant Year One (actually 17 months, 
from October 1, 1992 through February 28, 1994)* and $750,000 
in each subsequent year through September 29, 1997,** 
including indirect costs in the amount of two percent of the 
total grant award, or $21,250 in year one and $15,000 each 
year thereafter, made available through the Department of 
Health and Human Services, Office of Human Development 
for a project entitled "San Francisco Gang Prevention 
Project," and agreeing to provide in-kind match in the 
amount of $459,207; providing for ratification of action 
previously taken. 

$62,500 per month, or $1,062,500 for the 17 month Grant Year 
One, beginning October 1, 1992 and ending February 28, 1994, 
and $750,000 each year ($62,500 per month) for four years 
thereafter. The total five year and five month grant amount 
would be $4,062,500. 

Five years, five months total, beginning October 1, 1992 
through February 28, 1998 (65 months) 

Federal Department of Health and Human Services 
Office of Human Development 

San Francisco Gang Prevention Project 



The Department and Health and Human Services anticipates changing the fiscal year for the 
proposed grant from an October through September fiscal year to a March through February fiscal 
year. Therefore, the first fiscal year of the proposed grant would actually include 17 months, from 
October 1, 1992 (the start date of the old fiscal year schedule) to February 28, 1994 (the end date of the 
next new fiscal year schedule). The total grant amount for the 17 month period would be $1,062,500, 
or $62,500 per month, the same monthly amount as the ensuing four years of $750,000 per year, or 
$62,500 per month. 

The proposed grant would authorize the Mayor to apply for, accept and expend funds through 
September 29, 1997. However, according to Mr. Patrick Lynch of the Mayor's Office, the grant 
period for the proposed grant would end February 28, 1998. Therefore, the title of the proposed grant 
should be amended to authorize the Mayor to apply for, accept and expend funds through February 
28, 1998. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



59 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 2, 1992 



Description: 



Budget: 



The purpose of the San Francisco Gang Prevention Project, 
which began in 1989, is to develop, implement and evaluate a 
comprehensive program to prevent children and youth from 
becoming involved in gangs or drugs, and to redirect young 
people who are already participating in gang- or drug-related 
activities. 

The proposed project would provide coordinated services, 
including: (1) community-based street outreach and case 
management; (2) gang and drug prevention education in 
schools and neighborhood centers; (3) training in family 
communication, youth leadership and gang negotiation 
skills; and (4) expanded recreational and social activities for 
targetted youth. These efforts, instituted by a consortium of 
community-based organizations, would be coordinated by the 
Mayor's Office. 

The following budget includes a 17 month period, from 
October, 1992 to February, 1994. The proposed budget for the 
ensuing four years would be equal to 12 /i7 of this proposed 
budget, since this budget is for 17 months and those budgets 
would be for 12 months. 



Federal Citv Match Total 



Personnel 
Project Director 
Project Coordinator 
Project Staff Assistant 
Administrative Clerk 
Subtotal Personnel 

Fringe Benefits 

Fica 

Cal. Health 

Retirement 

Subtotal Fringe Benefits 

Travel (see Comment 3) 

Office Supplies 

Contractual fcee detail, below) 
Bayview-Hunter's Point Foundation 
Chinatown Youth Center 
Ella Hill Hutch Community Center 
O.M.I. Pilgrim Community Center 
Potrero Hill Neighborhood House 
Real Alternatives Program Inc. 





$120,417 


$120,417 


$54,035 





54,035 


41,007 





41,007 


fl 


34.000 


34,000 


$95,042 


$154,417 


$249,459 


$1,352 





$1,352 


2,125 





2,125 


7.084 


Q 


7.084 


$10,561 





$10561 


$8,500 


$7,084 


$15,584 


$7,551 


$7,084 


$14,635 


$81,464 


$24,821 


$106,285 


81,464 


24,821 


106285 


81,464 


24,821 


106285 


81,464 


24321 


106285 


81,464 


24,821 


106285 


81,464 


24,821 


106285 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



60 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 2, 1992 



Contractual 

Services Detail: 



F ed er al Citv Match Total 



Visitacion Valley Community Center 
Evaluation Component 
S.F. Safety Awareness for Everyone 
Community Board Program Inc. 
Subtotal Contractual Services 



$81,464 
63,750 
50,433 

$719,846 



$24,821 



14,167 

lfl£25 

$198,539 



$10635 
63,750 
64,600 

46,040 
$918,385 



Services Provided bv Citv Departments 
Police Dept Wilderness Program 

(2 FTEs) 
Recreation & Parks Department 

(3 FTEs) 
Subtotal City Services 

Other (see Comment 4) 

Indirect Costs (at 2 percent of 
total grant) 



51,000 

85.000 
$136,000 

63,750 



21.250 



49,583 100,583 



21250 
$70,833 

21,250 



106.250 
$206,833 

85,000 



21250. 



Totals 



$1,062,500 $459,207 $1,521,707 



Contractual Services (17 months') 

Seven community based agencies would each 

provide two full-time Youth Developers 

(approximately $3,126 per position per month x 17 

months). These seven agencies would be as 

follows: 

•Bayview Hunter's Point Foundation $106,285 

•Chinatown Youth Center 106,285 

•Ella Hill Hutch Community Center 106,285 

•O.M.I. Pilgrim Community Center 106,285 

•Potrero Hill Neighborhood House 106,285 

•Real Alternatives Program, Inc. 106,285 

•Visitacion Valley Community Center 106,285 

Each organization would establish and continue 
Youth Development outreach and case 
management strategies; receive referrals from the 
Juvenile Probation Department, Prevention/ 
Diversion Unit, Unified School District, Social 
Services and Recreation and Park Departments 
and Community Services providers. 

The Institute for the Advance Study of Black 
Family Life and Culture, Inc. would provide three 
professionals to conduct year-end formative 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



61 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 2, 1992 



evaluations, assist with quarterly reports, develop 
and implement case management intake forms, 
provide monitoring services and staff, implement 
case management intake forms, provide 
monitoring services and staff assistance. $63,750 

San Francisco Safety Awareness for Everyone 
(SAFE) would provide one full-time Staff Education 
Specialist to create and maintain a Gang 
Prevention Education Curriculum and make gang 
awareness presentations to parent and church 
groups, neighborhood agencies and other 
interested organizations. 64,600 

Community Board, Inc. would provide training 
and facilitation in family communication skills, as 
well as a parent trainer program, conflict 
resolution training for youth and outreach workers 
and gang prevention, conflict mediation and 
negotiation workshops for the consortium 
members. 46.040 

Total Contractual Services $918,385 



Required Match: 



Indirect Costs: 



Comments: 



$459,207 for the first 17 months, plus $324,000 per year for the 
ensuing four years, for a total of $1,755,207 for 65 months 

Two percent of total grant amount, or $21,250 the first year 
and $15,000 each year for four years thereafter 

1. The Gang Prevention Project has been in place since 1989. 
The Gang Prevention Project was previously funded as a pilot 
project. Therefore, the first three years of funding were one- 
year grants. This year, the Department of Health and 
Human Services is funding the Gang Prevention Project for 
five years because it has determined that the Project is a 
success. 

2. In fiscal year 1991-92, the Mayor's Office received $616,522, 
or approximately $51,377 per month, for the Gang Prevention 
Project. The proposed 65 month grant of $62,500 per month 
represents a monthly increase of 21.6 percent over the 
previous grant. 

3. The grant portion of Travel costs, at $8,500, would support 
the Project Director and Project Coordinator to attend at least 
two meetings, workshops and/or conferences, as mandated 
by the funder. 



BOARD OF SU PERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



62 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 2, 1992 



Recommendation: 



4. The grant portion of Other costs, at $63,750, would include 
recreational equipment, intern stipends, telephone, paging 
and mobile communications networks (ie, beepers). 

5. Mr. Lynch advises that the contractors for the proposed 
grant were selected in 1989 based on a competitive bid. The 
contracts for the proposed grant would be sole source 
renewals. All of the contractors are non-profit organizations. 

6. The proposed grant would require a local match of 
$459,207, or approximately 43.2 percent of the Federal grant 
amount of $1,062,500. This $459,207 has been included in the 
FY 1992-93 budgets of various departments, including the 
Police Department, the Juvenile Probation Department, and 
the Recreation and Parks Department. Mr. Lynch advises 
that the local match requirement in ensuing years would 
remain approximately 43.2 percent, or $324,000 per year, for a 
total of approximately $1,296,000 over four years. This 
$1,296,000 would be funded from various departments over 
the next four years. The total match for the full 65 month 
period of the proposed grant is $1,755,207. 

7. Three full-time employees from the Recreation and Park 
Department and two full-time employees from the Police 
Department would provide services to youth under the 
proposed grant. The total cost for these five FTEs would be 
$206,833, with the proposed grant providing $136,000, or 
approximately 65.8 percent of the total cost, and the 
departments providing $70,833, or approximately 34.2 percent 
of the total cost. The Mayor's Office advises that if the 
proposed grant were reduced or terminated, personnel would 
be reduced or terminated accordingly. 

8. The Mayor's Office has already applied for the proposed 
grant. Therefore, the proposed resolution provides for 
ratification of action previously taken. 

9. A Disability Access Checklist is in the file. 

10. The Mayor's Office has prepared a Summary of Grant 
Request Form, which is attached. 

Amend the proposed resolution to authorize the Mayor to 
accept and expend grant funds through February 28, 1998 
instead of September 29, 1997 and approve, as amended. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



63 



NOU-25-1992 1?= 12 FROM 



TO 



riMor PEPT off Hff AT.TH & HUMAIi .SERVICES 
ootact Person MARIA T. CANDAMIL 

ddress 33 ° C Street S,W * 

"^WASHINGTON D.C. 20201 

mount Requested 5 
erm: Prom Oct 92 

(iHh Commission ___ 



MAYOR 



925204bl h 
I Rev. 4/l0/90~| 



Division 
Scclloo 



750,000 PER YEAK 



To S ** Z 91 



CRIMINAL JUSTICE COUNCIL 
Contact P t ,so„ THOMAS MAYFIELD JR. 

Telephone (415) 554-6994 

Application Deadline __^___^___^___ 
Notification Expected ' 



Board of Supervisors: Finance Committee 
Full Board 



ttem Description: Request to (apply for) (accept and expend) a (new) (continuation) (aUocation) (augmentation to a) 

k^'w'*^ 1 grant in the amount of S 750,000 from (he period of , , m ...to , Sef t. 97 - 

a -«™vaC^rr!w«^.rini»!im #.« iS*i»vi»nfe ana divert. \im.j.\n.^u. . 



grant in trie amount ol ; from the period of ^ L 7 * j ... 10 ^ Si 

iop>n^^. A comprehensive pro-gram Eg pf event and divert 
and youth from becoming involved m gangs 

.. . - ...; JJ«a «HornativeS 



services. 



vn™h. through outreach activity. referrals, gtgggg **& > *. V*to "»" «■" » 



recreational program 



ri. Outeomes/Obltetlves: . . 

Avoid participation in gang/drug activity 
Participation in more positive acblvUl^ 



'. Effects of Reduction or Termination of -These Funds: 

Total 'shutdown o f program and B t ulf Uu- ough th e co^nUy , 



'._ Financial Information: 
«■- Col-, A 

Two Yean Ajo 

Jraat Amount ■ 822^029 

ersonnel ' 129,682 

iqulpmeut 1-6,000 

:oatract Svc. 631,108 

Ut. & Supp. 4.800 

acUltles/Space ■ 

Khcr " 

odlrect Costs _• 



f\. Data Processing 
trtm ■■ ! Ma t ■ ) 

'IT., Pcrsjnnfl 

YT CSC 

VT CSC 

Contractual 



Col, J 

P«ll Ycat/Orit- 

616,522 


Col. C 

Propottd 

1,062,500 

~105."$03 
B 

8677346 
" 7T551 


Col. D 


129, 682 




16,000 




466, U4U 




4,800 












63,750 



















Rtq. Match Approved bv 



Jonree(s) of non-grant funding for salaries of CSC employees working part-time on this grant: 

FOR CSC ' " " " ' ' " ' " 



VIII grant funded employed be retained after this grant terminates? If so, How? 



VITT. Contrartml S-rvlrx- Open Bid 



Sole Source 



( i -^* -**m. i- ia fcjaj— tm f 1 1 — Jli ■■ f^-m ) 



u 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 2, 1992 

Item 15 -File 172-92-16 

Department: Airport 

Item: Resolution approving the "Public Pay Telephone Agreement" 

between Pacific Bell and the City and County of San Francisco, 
acting by and through its Airports Commission. 

Description: The proposed resolution would approve a three year agreement 

with three one-year options between Pacific Bell and the City to 
install and operate a minimum of 725 pay telephones 
throughout the Airport Terminal Building Complex. Pacific Bell 
would pay the City $0,018 per passenger (annual total of 
enplaned and deplaned passengers) with a minimum annual 
guarantee of $600,000 to the Airport. 

According to Ms. Angela Gittens of the Airport, Pacific Bell has 
installed and operated pay telephones in the Airport under the 
existing agreement since the Airport has had pay telephones 
available to the public. However, because of the deregulation of 
telecommunications, this is the first time the contract has been 
bid. Ms. Gittens reports that Pacific Bell is the only company to 
submit a bid. 

Comments: 1. The existing agreement between the City and Pacific Bell 

from 1990 to the present is based on a percentage of Pacific 
Bell's total revenues received from the pay telephones with a 
minimum annual guarantee $300,000. Thus, the minimum 
annual guarantee of the proposed agreement for the next three 
years is 100 percent greater than the minimum annual 
guarantee of the previous agreement. According to Ms. Gittens, 
in FY 1991-92 Pacific Bell paid the Airport $500,000 to install 
and operate 725 pay telephones based on 12 percent of Pacific 
Bell's total revenues received from the pay telephones. 

2. Ms. Gittens reports that the proposed agreement does not 
include the default long distance telephone carrier. Ms. Gittens 
advises that the Airport will be issuing the RFP for the contract 
for the default long distance carrier within the next month. The 
default long distance carrier is the company that would provide 
long distance services at the Airport's pay phones when the pay 
phone user has not selected a long distance carrier. The current 
long distance default carrier is AT&T. 

3. Although the proposed agreement would require Pacific Bell to 
install and operate 750 pay telephones, these 750 pay 
telephones have already been installed by Pacific Bell. The 
proposed agreement would require Pacific Bell to continue to 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



65 



y~ . 

Memo to Finance Committee 
December 2, 1992 



provide 750 operating telephones for the duration of the three 
year contract. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

66 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 2, 1992 



Item 16 - File 173-92-4 
Item: 



Description: 



Comments: 



Resolution authorizing the Port of San Francisco to agree to 
hold the State of California harmless from all claims arising 
from State Lands Commission processing of a dredging 
permit. 

The Port of San Francisco has applied to the State Lands 
Commission for a dredging permit, in order to dredge 
(remove debris from) the vicinity of San Francisco's Pier 35 
Cruise Terminal. The State Lands Commission is expected 
to grant permission for the dredging at a meeting scheduled 
for December 14, 1992, using a standard form agreement 
which contains an indemnification clause. 

The proposed resolution would authorize the Port to hold 
harmless the State of California from claims arising from 
approval by the State Lands Commission of the dredging 
permit for Pier 35. 

1. According to Ms. Veronica Sanchez of the Port, the 
agreement with the State Lands Commission (SLC) which 
contains the hold harmless clause will be issued at the time 
that the dredging permit is issued, and therefore is not 
available in advance for review by the Board of Supervisors. 
Ms. Sanchez states that the agreement containing the hold 
harmless clause is a standard agreement, and the hold 
harmless clause is expected to be identical to the hold 
harmless clause contained in the dredging permit issued to 
the Port by the SLC in 1991. The text of the hold harmless 
clause used in 1991 is as follows: 

It is agreed that [the Port] shall indemnify, save 
harmless, and at the option of the State of 
California, defend said State, its officers, agents, and 
employees, against any and all claims, demands, 
causes of action, or liability of any kind which may 
be asserted against or imposed upon the State of 
California or any of its officers, agents, or employees, 
by any third person or entity, arising out of or 
connected with the issuance of this permit, 
operations hereunder, or the use by [the Port or the 
Port's] agents, employees, or contractors, of the 
above-described lands. 

Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, 
such indemnification shall include any claim, 
demand, cause of action, or liability of any kind 
asserted against or impounded upon the State of 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



67 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 2, 1992 



Recommendation: 



California or any of its officers, agents or employees, 
arising out of or connected with any alleged or actual 
violation by [the Port or the Port's] agents, 
employees or contractors of the property or 
contractual rights of any third persons or entity. It 
is agreed that [the Port] shall, at the option of the 
[State Lands] Commission, procure and maintain 
liability insurance for the benefit of the State in an 
amount satisfactory to the Commission. 

2. The Budget Analyst notes that the hold harmless clause 
described above differs from that which would be 
authorized by the proposed resolution. The clause which 
now appears in the proposed resolution is more limited than 
the clause cited above, since it refers only to "claims and 
losses," and not to "demands, causes of action, or liability of 
any kind" as cited above, and would limit the State's 
liability to claims brought by "individuals, firms, or 
corporations supplying work services or supplies," rather 
than by "any third person or entity," as cited above. Ms. 
Sanchez states that she has confirmed that the hold 
harmless clause presented above is the language expected 
to be used in the SLC standard agreement, and the text of 
the proposed resolution should therefore be amended 
accordingly. 

3. Ms. Sanchez states that the SLC will not issue the 
dredging permit at its next meeting of December 14, 1992 
without the Board of Supervisors' authorization to enter 
into the standard agreement which contains the hold 
harmless clause. Approval of the proposed resolution by the 
Board of Supervisors would be needed on December 7, 1992 
in order for the dredging permit to be issued on December 
14. Ms. Sanchez states that dredging of Pier 35 is expected 
to take only 2-3 days, but that expeditious dredging is 
needed in order to ensure that the dredging does not 
interfere with the Bay herring season. 

1. Amend the proposed resolution by deleting the text of 
the hold harmless clause which appears at page 1, line 15 
through page 2, line 4 of the proposed resolution, and by 
substituting the hold harmless clause quoted at Comment 1 
above, in order to reflect the language expected to be used 
in the standard agreement used by the State Lands 
Commission for the dredging permit. 

2. Approval of the proposed resolution is a policy matter for 
the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



68 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 2, 1992 

Item 17 - File 51-92-3 

This item transmits the claims of various City employees for 
reimbursement for personal property damaged and/or stolen in the line of duty. 

Section 10.25-1 of the San Francisco Administrative Code authorizes the 
Controller to provide reimbursement to City employees to recover part or all of the 
costs of replacing or repairing equipment or property which has been damaged or 
destroyed in the line of duty without the fault of the City employees. The Controller 
recommends reimbursement after reviewing the claim submitted to the 
Controller, and after reviewing the Department Head's certification to the 
Controller that the damage occurred in the line of duty and that the amount 
certified for payment is fair and reasonable. 

Cflmmsnte 

1. The employee claims are for the three month period of July, August and 
September, 1992. 

2. As of the writing of this report, Mr. John Madden of the Controller's 
Office advises that the Controller's Office has not completed it's report on the 
recommended reimbursements for the employee claims. Mr. Madden advises 
that the report will be ready for presentation at the Finance Committee Meeting 
on December 2, 1992. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



ftQ 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 2, 1992 

Item 18- File 82-92-9 

Departments: Real Estate Department 

Airports Commission 

Item: Resolution authorizing the acquisition of 100 additional noise 

easements in the City of South San Francisco for the 
Airport's Phase VII Noise Easement Program. 

Description: The San Francisco International Airport's Noise Easement 

Acquisition Program consists of insulating private 
residences and schools in the City of South San Francisco 
and other cities that are located near the San Francisco 
Airport. The proposed legislation would authorize the 
acquisition of 100 additional noise easements in the City of 
South San Francisco as part of the Airport's Phase VII 
Program. 

Once purchased, the noise easements would remain in effect 
for 20 years. As consideration for the granting of noise 
easements from the property owners to the City, the City 
would pay 20 percent of the total construction cost and title 
insurance fees to insulate the 100 residences. The cost to the 
City would not exceed $250,000, according to the proposed 
legislation. This $250,000 has been included in the Airport's 
FY 1992-93 budget. The City of South San Francisco would 
pay the remaining 80 percent, or $1 million, of the total 
construction costs and title insurance fees of approximately 
$100 per easement, with funding obtained from Federal grant 
funds. 

Comments: 1. The Real Estate Department reports that the acquisition of 

the 100 additional noise easements in the City of South San 
Francisco would satisfy the State-mandated noise mitigation 
requirements. The Board of Supervisors has previously 
approved eight different resolutions to acquire a combined 
total of 533 noise easements in the City of South San 
Francisco. If the proposed resolution is approved, the City 
would have authorized a total of 633 noise easements in the 
City of South San Francisco. 

2. The City Attorney's Office reports that the purchase of 
these noise easements enables the City to comply with State 
legal requirements, and eliminates any costs to defend 
against noise-related small claims lawsuits filed by the South 
San Francisco residents who would benefit from the noise 
easements. 

Recommendation - Approve the proposed resolution. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



70 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 2, 1992 

Item 19 -File 65-92-14 

Department: Public Utilities Commission 

Item: 



Location: 

Purpose of Lease: 

Lessee: 

No. of Sq. Ft and 
Revenue/Month: 

Annual Revenue: 
Utilities & Services: 



Term of Lease: 
Escalation: 

Comments: 



Ordinance authorizing lease of Water Department land in 
Santa Clara County to the Roman Catholic Bishop of San 
Jose. 

Pipeline right-of-way of approximately 0.71 acre in Santa 
Clara County, parallel to the Bayshore Highway between 
Morse Avenue and Weddell Drive, and adjacent to a 
community center. 

Parking and landscaping adjacent to a community center. 

The Roman Catholic Bishop of San Jose 



Approximately 0.71 acre, or approximately 30,928 square 
feet. Initial rent would be $900/month, or approximately 
$0.03 per square foot per month. 

$10,800 in the first year 

The lessee would be responsible for the payment of all 
utilities and services, including water, gas, electricity, and 
other services delivered to the premises. In addition, the 
lessee would be responsible to keep and maintain the 
premises in good condition, at its own expense. 

January 1, 1993 through December 31, 2002 (10 years); with 
four 5-year renewal options. 

$3,600/year for the first 5 years, beginning January 1, 1994, 
with adjustments in subsequent years based on fair market 
value or changes in the Consumer Price Index (see 
Comment 3). 

1. The premises covered by the proposed lease are part of 
the City's pipeline right-of-way used to transport and 
distribute water for municipal use. According to the 
proposed lease, any and all rights granted to the Roman 
Catholic Bishop of San Jose, the lessee, "shall be 
subordinate to the City's use of premises" for this purpose. 

The proposed lease states that the premises are adjacent to 
a community center and may be used solely for the purpose 
of parking and landscaping. The General Manager of the 
Public Utilities Commission (PUC) would have sole 
authority to determine whether the actual use complies 

BOARD OF SUPER VLSORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



71 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 2, 1992 



with the permitted use. Since the Roman Catholic Bishop of 
San Jose, the lessee, would be allowed to construct a 
parking lot at the site, the proposed lease contains the 
following provisions to protect the City's pipelines: 

Construction and Removal of Imnrovements: Any 
construction or improvement to the premises must be 
approved in advance by the General Manager of the PUC, 
who would determine whether or not the proposed 
construction would interfere with the City's pipelines. The 
lessee could be required to alter or remove, at its own 
expense, any property or installation which interfered with 
the City's use of the pipelines. 

If excavation of the premises by the City is required, the 
lessee would be required to pay any costs to remove or 
restore any parking or landscaping improvements 
damaged by the excavation. 

Restrictions on Construction Activities : In order to protect 
the City's pipeline, the proposed lease requires the lessee to 
exercise "extreme care in the use of tools and equipment," 
expressly prohibits the planting of large trees, and restricts 
the type of vehicles and construction equipment which can 
be used within 20 feet of the pipeline. In addition, at least 3 
feet of soil must be maintained over the City's pipelines at 
all times. 

Maintenance and Title to Lessee's Improvements : The 
lessee would be responsible to maintain and repair any 
improvements at its own expense. Upon termination or 
expiration of the lease, the City would receive title to any 
improvements, additions, or utility installations on the 
premises, or could require their removal at the lessee's 
expense. 

Access bv Citv Employees : Employees and representatives 
of the City would have the right to enter the premises at any 
time, and access is specifically ensured in order to repair 
and maintain the pipeline. 

Reimbursement for Costs of Repairs: The expense of 
maintaining and repairing the City's property, including 
the pipelines, would be borne by the City, unless these costs 
resulted from the activities of the lessee, its employees, 
agents, or contractors. 

2. Mr. Alan Lucas of the Water Department states that the 
possibility of damage to the City's property as the result of 
the lease is extremely remote, since the PUC would be 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



72 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 2, 1992 



required to approve in advance the scope and method of any 
proposed construction, and a City construction inspector 
would be assigned to oversee the construction. 

According to Mr. Lucas, the cost of replacing a section of 
pipe damaged by an impact with construction equipment 
would be approximately $200,000. However, this is a 
hypothetical case, and actual repair costs, if the City's 
pipelines are damaged, could vary depending on the nature 
of the damage. Mr. Lucas states that the City Attorney has 
confirmed that the lessee would be responsible under the 
proposed lease for the cost of repairing any damage caused 
by the lessee's use of the premises. 

3. The term of the lease would be ten years, with four 
options to renew the lease for 5 years, for a maximum 
renewal option of 20 years. Rent in the first year would be 
$900 per month, or $10,800 per year, with annual increases 
of $3,600 in the 2nd through 5th years. Thus, annual rent 
in the first 5 years, beginning January 1, 1993, would be as 
follows: 



Year 


Annual Rent 


Monthlv Rent 


1993 


$10,800 


$ 900 


1994 


14,400 


1,200 


1995 


18,000 


1,500 


1996 


21,600 


1300 


1997 


25,200 


2,100 



In the alternative, the lessee would be given the option of 
paying $70,013 in advance for the first 5 years, which the 
PUC reports is equal to a constant monthly rent of $1,500 
over 5 years, discounted at 9 percent. In other words, the 
PUC has calculated that $70,013 paid in advance is equal to 
the value of a monthly payment of $1,500 over 5 years 
($90,000), because of the interest which can be earned at 9 
percent on the advance payment. 

At the request of either party, the annual rent would be re- 
assessed, based on fair market value, prior to 
commencement of the 6th, 11th, 16th, 21st, and 26th years of 
the lease. Annual increases in all other years after the 5th 
year, and at any 5 year interval in which re-assessment 
based on fair market value is not performed, would be 
proportional to the increase in the Consumer Price Index 
(CPI) published by the Federal Government. However, the 
annual rent increase based on the CPI could not exceed 10 
percent, even if the CPI increased by more than 10 percent. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed ordinance. 

BOARD OF SUPERVLSORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



73 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 2, 1992 

Item 20 - File 106-92-2 

Note: This item was transferred to the Finance Committee at the November 
17, 1992 meeting of the Administration and Oversight Committee, 
because of its fiscal impact. 

1. The proposed resolution would authorize the Civil Services Commission 
to expend budgeted funds in the amount of $89,500 to conduct the salary survey for 
salary standardization for fiscal year 1993-94. 

2. Salary Standardization Procedure 

The Civil Service salary standardization procedure with respect to 
Miscellaneous positions operates under the general guidelines of Section 8.401 of 
the City Charter. This Section provides that City and County Miscellaneous 
employees be paid "...in accord with the generally prevailing rates of wages for 
like service and working conditions in private employment or in other comparable 
governmental organizations in this state." Section 8.407 applies to all employees 
covered by Section 8.401 and provides a set procedure and a mathematical formula 
by which wages for those employees will be set. The procedure requires that data 
on wages paid for comparable employment be collected from five Bay Area 
counties (Marin, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Alameda, and Contra Costa), from the 
ten most populous cities in those counties, from other public jurisdictions in the 
Bay Area (including the State and Federal governments), and from the private 
sector. Should Civil Service staff determine that insufficient data exist, out-of-Bay 
Area data may be acquired, provided that the jurisdiction surveyed employs 3,000 
or more persons. 

Section 8.407 provides the basis for the wage and salary survey conducted to 
establish wage rates for Miscellaneous City and County employees. The survey is 
based on "benchmark" classes which are considered to be key classes within 
occupational groupings. Survey data on wages and salaries are collected for 
positions judged comparable to the benchmark classes in other jurisdictions and 
in the private sector. If the prevailing wage, as determined by the survey, is above 
the wage paid by the City and County, a wage increase for the affected class is 
warranted; if the prevailing wage is below that paid by the City and County, no 
wage increase is warranted. In general, if the Civil Service Commission 
recommends a benchmark class for an increase, all classes tied to the benchmark 
class will be recommended for a corresponding increase; if the benchmark class 
is not recommended for an increase, none of the classes tied to that benchmark 
class will be recommended for a wage increase. 

Subsequent to releasing the preliminary salary survey, notices are 
distributed to employees and employee groups regarding the procedure for 
requesting adjustments to the recommendations. These internal adjustment 
requests are analyzed by the Civil Service Commission. Where appropriate, 
internal salary adjustments over those indicated by the survey are incorporated 
into the salary recommendations. The amended recommendations are made 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

74 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 2, 1992 

available at a public hearing after which they are submitted to the Board of 
Supervisors. 

The Commission updates the salary survey each year in an effort to comply 
with the Charter's provision (contained in Section 8.407) that salaries be set in 
accordance with the "prevailing rates" in other jurisdictions. The Charter does 
not require the survey update. For purposes of setting the salaries for San 
Francisco employees, however, the Civil Service Commission has defined 
"prevailing rate" as that rate effective July 1 of the corresponding fiscal year in 
other jurisdictions. With this definition, the preliminary survey must be updated 
after the July 1 salaries in other jurisdictions have been determined. In a letter of 
opinion dated February 16, 1977, the City Attorney concurred with the concept of 
using July 1 salaries as the "prevailing rate" for purposes of setting San 
Francisco salaries. 

3. Charter Section 8.401 governs in part the method of setting salaries for 
positions within the City and County service and provides the following: 

"Not later than January 15th, 1944 and every five years thereafter and 
more often if in the judgement of the Civil Service Commission or the 
Board of Supervisors economic conditions have changed to the extent 
that revision of existing schedules may be warranted in order to 
reflect current prevailing conditions, the Civil Service Commission 
shall prepare and submit to the Board of Supervisors a schedule of 
compensation as in this section provided." 

4. The following is a tabulation of general increases in salaries since the 
updated salary survey for fiscal year 1992-93 in the majority of the public 
jurisdictions from which the Civil Service Commission collect salary data under 
the provisions of the Charter: 

Public Jurisdictions 
Salary Increases Since March of 1992 

Marin County 5.0% 

Contra Costa County 3.0% 

Alameda County 4.0% 

Santa Clara County 0.0% 

San Mateo County 3.0% 

State of California 0.0% 

City of San Jose 5.0% 

City of Oakland 4.0% 



BOARD OF SI JPERVLSORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

75 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 2, 1992 

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) has reported an approximate average 3.5 
percent annual increase in wages in private employment in the greater Bay Area 
during the past year through June of 1992. 

5. Mr. Pat Finney of the Civil Service Commission estimates that the above 
increases since March of 1992 would result in increases for the City's 
Miscellaneous employees of approximately one to two percent. However, 
historically, the results of the final salary survey, released in March of each year, 
indicate that the actual percentage increase is significantly more than the 
percentage estimate resulting from the preliminary survey. The Civil Service 
Commission found that a review of the tabulation of Bay Area salary increases 
and BLS certifications disclosed that increases in salaries in other jurisdiction 
are sufficiently significant to warrant a salary survey of public jurisdictions and 
private employment in order to make salary recommendations for fiscal year 
1993-94. 

1. This will be the eleventh year in which the private sector portion of the 
salary survey will be provided by contract through the State Personnel Board with 
the Joint Powers Agency consisting of the City of Anaheim, Hayward Unified 
School District, County of Sacramento, Sacramento Utilities District, and the 
County of Sonoma. (Charter Sections 8.401 and 8.407 require the Commission to 
collect such data from "recognized governmental Bay Area salary and wage 
surveys of private employers...") 

Commission staff report that the cost of the contract with the Joint Powers 
Agency will be $87,000 including a salary survey update which may be done later 
in the fiscal year. The Commission's 1992-93 budget for all Charter-required 
surveys, including uniformed members of the Police and Fire Departments, 
Registered Nurses and Transit Operators as well as Miscellaneous employees, 
totals $89,500. The remaining funds in the amount of $2,500 would be used to staff 
field work, mail questionnaires, telephone use including long distance, printed 
forms and salary survey books, additional printing costs associated with the 
salary standardization ordinances and follow-up contacts with surveyed agencies. 

2. The Civil Service Commission anticipates that when the final survey is 
completed, the overall percentage increase for FY 1993-94 for Miscellaneous 
employees will be less than four percent. Thus, the total estimated cost of Salary 
Standardization in FY 1993-94 for Miscellaneous employees would be 
approximately $44.6 million, including $32.6 million in General Fund costs. 

3. In past years the Civil Service Commission staff has conducted two 
salary surveys each year to set salaries for Miscellaneous employees. A 
preliminary survey is prepared by staff and reported to the Commission in 
January of each year. In March the final survey is conducted by staff updating all 
private and public data in the preliminary survey. This report is forwarded to the 
Board of Supervisors, and upon adoption, becomes the basis for the following 
fiscal year's Salary Standardization Ordinance. 

BOARD OF SUPERVLSORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

76 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 2, 1992 

However, to save time and avoid unnecessary duplication, this year the 
Civil Service Commission is proposing to conduct a single survey. Both the Budget 
Analyst's management audit and the Controller's performance audit staff have 
recommended a single survey as a more efficient use of time and personnel. A 
single survey would result in a larger response to the salary survey from other 
public sector agencies because they would not be asked for the same information 
twice in a two-month period. 

4. This item was approved by the Administration and Oversight Committee 
on November 17, 1992 and transferred to the Finance Committee because of its 
fiscal impact. 

Bfigaamgadajfon 

Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

77 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 2, 1992 

Item 21 -File 106-92-3 

Note: This item was transferred to the Finance Committee at the November 17, 
1992 rescheduled meeting of the Administration and Oversight Committee 
because of its fiscal impact. 

Department Civil Service Commission 

Item: Resolution fixing highest generally prevailing wage rates, for 

private employment on public contracts. 

Description: The proposed resolution would determine that the highest 

general prevailing rate of wages paid for private employment 
on City contracts to various craft workers is as set forth in (a) 
the General Prevailing Wage Determination survey made by 
the Director of Industrial Relations of the State of California 
for all craft workers except Garage Attendants and (b) the 
agreement between Parking Employers and Teamster 
Automotive Employees, Local 665 for Garage Attendants. 

Charter Section 7.204 requires that contracts for public works 
or improvement involving construction or fabrication shall 
provide for the payment of the highest prevailing wage rates 
to all persons performing labor under such contracts. 

Section 6.37 of the City's Administrative Code gives authority 
to the Board of Supervisors to fix and determine the highest 
general prevailing wage rates. To assist the Board in the 
determination of these wage rates, the Civil Service 
Commission is required to furnish, on an annual basis, data 
as to the highest general prevailing rate of wages of the 
various crafts and types of labor, including wages paid on 
holidays and for overtime, as paid by private employers in the 
City. In determining these wage rates, the Board of 
Supervisors is not limited to the data submitted by the Civil 
Service Commission but may consider such other 
information on the subject as it may deem proper. 

The Civil Service Commission has determined that the 
General Prevailing Wage Determination made by the State of 
California's Director of Industrial Relations represents the 
highest prevailing rates of wages for various craft workers 
except for Garage Attendants, such as those operating and 
maintaining City-owned parking lots and garages, because 
the State's General Prevailing Wage Determination survey 
does not include any data for Garage Attendants. Therefore, 
as an alternative, the Civil Service Commission used the 
agreement between Parking Employers and the Teamsters 
Automotive Employees, Local 665 as the benchmark for the 

BOARD OF SUPERVLSORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



78 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 2, 1992 

highest general prevailing wage for Garage Attendants. 
According to the current three year agreement for the period 
beginning December 1, 1989, the highest hourly rate was 
$11.50 per hour as of December 1, 1989,and the current rate is 
$12.25 as of December 1, 1991. Negotiations are currently in 
progress for rates to be effective December 1, 1992. 

Comments: 1. Mr. Pat Finney of the Civil Service Commission reports 

that because the proposed resolution would apply to at least 
250 different classifications, the Civil Service Commission 
has not estimated the average increase or decrease in wage 
rates for all of these positions. However, Mr. Finney notes 
that a copy of the report which specifies the increase or 
decrease in prevailing wage rates for each various craft 
worker position is in the Board of Supervisors file. Mr. 
Finney estimates that the overall increase in wage rates for 
all various craft worker positions combined would be less 
than four percent. 

As noted above, any City department which enters into a 
contract is required by Charter Section 7.204 to pay the 
highest generally prevailing wage rate for labor performed 
under the contract. While the Civil Service Commission 
provides City Departments with annual highest generally 
prevailing wage rates data, the Civil Service Commission 
does not actively monitor wage rates paid under City 
contracts. 

2. Mr. Geoff Rothman of the Civil Service Commission 
reports that the majority of public construction contracts 
which the proposed resolution would apply to are contracts in 
the Department of Public Works (DPW) and the Public 
Utilities Commission. However, the proposed resolution 
would also apply to public construction contracts in various 
City departments such as the Airport, the Port or the Water 
Department. Mr. Lin Lwin of the DPW Contract Office 
reports that the majority of DPW's public construction 
contracts are in the DPW's Bureau of Architecture, the 
Bureau of Engineering and the Clean Water Program. Mr. 
Lwin indicates that in FY 1991-92, the DPW public 
construction contracts totalled approximately $80 million. 

Mr. Lwin reports that the percentage of the total contract cost 
which would be attributable to labor would depend upon the 
type of construction contract. For instance, Mr. Lwin 
indicated that a paving contract would have a greater 
percentage in material costs versus a sewer repair job which 
would have a higher percentage labor costs. Assuming that 
the overall increase in wage rates for all various craft worker 

BOARD OF SUP ERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



79 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 2, 1992 



positions combined is up to four percent, and assuming a 
minimum of 50 percent of the contract is attributable to labor 
costs, the proposed increase in cost to the City for DPW 
construction contracts would be as follows: 

Estimated Potential 

Cost of Labor Cost of Labor Additional 
FY 91-92 FY 92-93 Cost to the Citv 

DPW Construction Contracts $40 million $41.6 million $1.6 million 

3. Mr. Roland Horn of the PUC's Contract Compliance Office 
reports that the PUC Project Managers for public 
construction contracts monitor whether contractors and sub- 
contractors are paying prevailing wages. However, Mr. Horn 
was unable to readily provide information regarding the total 
amount of public construction contracts which the PUC 
entered into for FY 1992-93 because of the large number of 
contracts which the PUC administers. In addition, Mr. Horn 
indicated that the amount of each contract which would be 
attributable to labor would vary, and would require an 
examination of each individual contract. 

4. Mr. Kevin Hagerty of the Department of Parking and 
Traffic reports that the City currently has 12 five-year leases 
for parking lots or garages in which the City receives a 
percentage of gross revenues after parking taxes. Mr. 
Hagerty explains that any increases in operating expenses, 
due to increases in prevailing wages, would only affect the 
operators, since the City receives a percentage of gross 
revenues. Mr. Hagerty also reports that there are five non- 
profit garages in the City, in which operators would pass 
increased labor costs to the City, because the City receives a 
percentage of gross revenue less operating expenses. 
However, Mr. Hagerty notes that the operators of these five 
non-profit garages are union operators, so it is likely that any 
decrease in net revenues which the City will receive has 
already been reflected in the Department's FY 1992-93 budget. 
Mr. Hagerty explains it would be difficult to estimate any 
future increase in costs to the City for either the leased or 
non-profit parking lots or garages. 

5. Mr. Burk Delventhal of the City Attorney's Office reports 
that the Board of Supervisors is required to approve the 
highest generally prevailing wage rates paid for private 
employment under public contracts. As noted above, the 
Board of Supervisors may consider other information on the 
subject which would fix the highest generally prevailing 
wage rates other than the survey which is transmitted by the 
Civil Service Commission. However, Mr. Delventhal reports 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



80 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 2, 1992 



that this means that the Board may be provided with other 
data which indicates what the highest generally prevailing 
wage rates are, but the Board still must fix these wage rates. 

4. This item was approved by the Administration and Oversight 
Committee on November 17, 1992 and transferred to the Finance 
Committee because of its fiscal impact. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



■** M^mo to Finance Committee 
. December 2, 1992 

Item ??- File 260-92-1 

Note: This item was continued at the November 18, 1992 Finance Committee 
meeting. 

Item: Resolution urging the transfer of two City remittance 

banking accounts from the Bank of America, urging the 
transfer of City revolving banking accounts from the Bank 
of America, urging that Bank of America not be used for the 
City's proposed direct payroll deposit program, and urging 
all officers and employees of the City and County, when 
given the opportunity to utilize the services of a financial 
institution for the City, to consider the use of financial 
institutions other than the Bank of America. 



Description: 



The Bank of America has recently reinstated its corporate 
donations to the Boy Scouts of America. In the past, the 
Boy Scouts of America has announced a policy to deny 
membership to homosexual persons. 

The proposed resolution contains a finding that, although 
the Bank of America has stated that the Boy Scouts of 
America no longer discriminates on the basis of sexual 
orientation, a contrary public record exists to indicate that, 
in fact, the Boy Scouts of America does chsmminate on the 
basis of sexual orientation. 

The proposed resolution states that the actions of the Bank 
of America in providing financial support to the Boy Scouts 
of America is inconsistent with the City's non- 
discrimination policies and with its policy not to do business 
with entities whose policies foster and encourage 
discrimination against any of the residents of San 
Francisco. 

Therefore, the proposed resolution urges the following: 

• That two City remittance banking accounts be 
transferred from the Bank of America. 

• That the City's revolving bank accounts be transferred 
from the Bank of America. 

• That the Bank of America not be used for the City's 
proposed direct payroll deposit program. 

• That all officers and employees of the City and County 
consider the use of financial institutions other than the 
Bank of America to conduct City business. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



82 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 2, 1992 



Comments: 



1. According to the City Treasurer, Ms. Mary Callanan, the 
City's two remittance accounts cited in the proposed 
resolution consist of two lock-box remittance accounts 
which were recently transferred to the Bank of America 
from another financial institution. Ms. Callanan states 
that these two lock-box remittance accounts are among 
three such accounts for which the City is currently 
soliciting competitive bids from financial institutions. 

A lock-box account involves the remittance of payments to 
the City of San Francisco through a post office box, which is 
attended by the financial institution to which the deposits 
are made. This system eliminates the need for preh'minary 
processing by City employees and permits receipts to be 
expeditiously deposited to the City's accounts. 

2. The proposed resolution also urges the transfer of the 
City's revolving bank accounts. According to the 
Treasurer's report to the Board of Supervisors of September 
18, 1992, City departments maintain approximately 85 
separate checking accounts, of which 25 are with the Bank 
of America. The report estimates that these 25 checking 
accounts had a combined balance in September 1992 of 
$615,100. The Treasurer's list of these 25 accounts is 
attached to this report. 

Ms. Callanan states that departments exercise their 
discretion in selecting a bank for any revolving accounts 
which are under their control. Ms. Callanan states that 
revolving accounts which are held with the Bank of 
America tend to be less costly to the departments, since the 
fees for these accounts can be paid from the interest on the 
City's large compensation account with the Bank of 
America (see Comment 3). 

3. According to the Treasurer's September 18, 1992 report, 
the City maintains a compensating balance account with 
the Bank of America which contains funds transferred to or 
from many smaller accounts. The compensating balance 
account has an average daily balance of $37.5 million, 
according to the Treasurer's report, and the interest which 
accrues to the City from this account is used to pay the cost 
of numerous banking services, including the fees for the 25 
revolving accounts with the Bank of America which are 
held by individual City departments. 

4. The proposed resolution would also urge that the Bank 
of America not be used for the City's proposed direct payroll 
deposit program. The City Controller, Mr. Ed Harrington, 
states that although the development of a direct payroll 

BOARD O F SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



83 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 2, 1992 



Recommendation: 



deposit program has been considered, efforts will not be 
made to implement such a program at least until the spring 
or summer of 1993. Mr. Harrington states that the City 
would select a bank to provide these services through a 
competitive bidding procedure. 

Approval of the proposed resolution is a policy matter for 
the Board of Supervisors. 



0* 

Harvey M. Rose 



cc: Supervisor Gonzalez 
Supervisor Migden 
Supervisor Hallinan 
President Shelley 
Supervisor Achtenberg 
Supervisor Alioto 
Supervisor Britt 
Supervisor Conroy 
Supervisor Hsieh 
Supervisor Kennedy 
Supervisor Maher 
Clerk of the Board 
Chief Administrative Officer 
Controller 
Jean Mariani 
Barbara Kolesar 
Ted Lakey 



BOARD OF S UPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



84 



Attachment 
Fage i of 2 



APPENDIX A-l 



CITY DEPARTMENTS 

BANK ACCOUNTS 

BANK OF AMERICA 



(CHECKING ACCOUNTS ORIGINATED BY INDIVIDUAL DEPARTMENTS - 
SERVICE CHARGES PAID* FOR BY TREASURER'S ANALYSIS PROGRAM) 



DEPARTMENT 

ADULT PROBATION 
AIRPORTS COMMISSION 
ASIAN ARTS MUSEUM 
CITY ATTORNEY 
COMMISSION ON THE AGING 
CORONER 

PUBLIC LIBRARY 

HETCH HETCHY 

WATER DEPARTMENT 
Damage Claim 
Consumer Adjustment 
Consumer Deposit 
Regular 

S.F. GENERAL HOSPITAL 
Revolving 



BANK 
LOCATION 


AVERAGE OR 
LATEST BALANCE 


1 Powell Street 


$ 650. 


S.F. I. A. 


10,000. 


800 Irving 


1,000. 


1 Powell Street 


65,000. 


1525 Market 


300. 


345 Montgomery 
1525 Market 


19,900. 
500. 


1 Powell Street 


5,000. 


1 Powell Street 


7,500. 


1 Powell Street 
1 Powell Street 
1 Powell Street 
1 Powell Street 


1,200. 
25,000. 

-0- 
58,000. 



2850 - 24th Street 



38,200, 



85 



Attachment 
Page 2 of 2 



APPENDIX A-2 



CITY DEPARTMENTS 

BANK ACCOUNTS 

BANK OF AMERICA 



, (CHECKING ACCOUNTS ORIGINATED BY INDIVIDUAL 
DEPARTMENTS - SERVICE CHARGES PAID BY DEPARTMENTS) 



DEPARTMENT 

AGRICULTURE 

Weights & Measures 
Farmers Market 

DEPARTMENT OF ELECTRICITY 
& BUREAU OF TELECOMMUNICA- 
TIONS 

LAGUNA HONDA HOSPITAL 
Patients Trust Fund 

POLICE DEPARTMENT 
Contingency Fund A 
Contingency Fund B 
Revolving 

PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO 

PUBLIC DEFENDER 

MUNICIPAL RAILWAY 

S.F. GENERAL HOSPITAL 
Patient Account 



BANK 


AVERAGE OR 


LOCATION 


LATEST BALANCE 


2090 Jerrold 


$ 400. 


2090 Jerroid 


200. 



2090 Jerrold 2,000, 

288 West Portal 32,000, 

1 Powell Street 3,000, 

1 Powell Street 217,000, 

1 Powell Street 7,000, 

1 Market Plaza 69,000, 

345 Montgomery 250, 

4141 Geary 17,000, 

2850 - 24th Street 35,000, 



Rfi 



Sf 

aft I w 



ALENDAR DOCUMENTS DEPT= 

MEETING of DEC 7 1992 

. X HNANCE COMMITTEE SAN FRANCISCO 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS PUBLIC LIBRARY 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

/ 

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1992 - 2:00 P.M. LEGISLATIVE CHAMBER 

2ND FLOOR, CITY HALL 

MEMBERS: SUPERVISORS GONZALEZ, MIGDEN, HALLINAN 

CLERK: GAIL JOHNSON 

NOTE: Copies of the Budget Analyst's Report will be available for review on the 
counter in the Office of the Clerk of the Board, Room 235, City Hall, 
10:00 a.m., the date of the meeting. 

CONSENT CALENDAR 

1. All matters listed hereunder constitute a Consent Calendar, are considered to be 
routine by the Finance Committee, and will be acted upon by a single roll call vote 
of the Committee. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a 
member of the Committee or a member of the public so requests, in which event the 
matter shall be removed from the Consent Calendar and considered as a separate 
item. 

(a) File 148-92-9 . [Grant - State Funds] Resolution authorizing the Director of 
Public Works to expend up to $1,044,335 from the State of California for 
roadway work on city streets in accordance with the State-Local 
Transportation Partnership Program (3rd Cycle) foregoing reimbursement of 
indirect costs. (Department of Public Works) Finance 

(b) File 146-91-1.2 . [Grant - State Funds] Resolution authorizing the Department 
of Public Health, Community Public Health, Bureau of Health Promotion and 
Education, to expend $118,738 of grant funds which excludes indirect costs 
from the State Department of Health Services to fund the contractor, Kopell & 
Associates and Maureen O'Rorke, Public Relations and Advertising, to 
implement a smoke-free environment outreach and media campaign for San 
Francisco residents; companion measures to Files 146-91-1, 146-91-1.1 and 
146-91-8. (Department of Public Health) 

(c) File 146-92-73 . [Grant - Federal Funds] Resolution authorizing the 
Department of Public Health, Community Public Health Services, Family 
Health Bureau, to accept and expend retroactively a grant of $502,010, which 
includes indirect costs in the amount of $7,205, based on twenty percent of 
personnel costs, from the Centers for Disease Control for family planning and 
HTV research and development services for women; providing for ratification of 
action already taken. (Department of Public Health) 



(d) File 146-92-74 . [Grant - Federal Funds] Resolution authorizing the 

Department of Public Health, Public Health Programs, Family Health Bureau, 
to accept and expend a grant of $566,947, which includes indirect costs in the 
amount of $7,068, based on twenty percent of personnel costs, from Centers 
for Disease Control, for family planning and HTV clinical and educational 
services for women; providing for ratification of action previously taken. 
(Department of Public Health) 



(e) File 146-92-75 . [Grant - Federal Funds] Resolution authorizing the 

Department of Public Health, Community Public Health Services, Family 
Health Bureau, to apply for retroactively, accept and expend a grant of 
$358,922, which includes indirect administrative costs in the amount of $1,700, 
based on one percent of personnel costs, from California Family Planning 
Council, Inc., for family planning services; providing for ratification of action 
previously taken. (Department of Public Health) 



(f) File 147-92-5 . [Grant - Federal Funds] Resolution authorizing the San 

Francisco Public Library to accept and expend $34,530 in funds available from 
the United States Department of Education for a Project Read Outreach 
Program including and indirect cost of $1,644. (Public Library) 



(g) File 147-92-6 . [Grant - Federal Funds] Resolution authorizing the San 

Francisco Public Library to accept and expend $29,033 in funds available from 
the United States Department of Education for a Project Read Outreach 
Program including and indirect cost of $1,383. (Public Library) 



(h) File 140-92-1 . [Grant - State Funds] Resolution approving the grant funding 
from the State of California Department of Industrial Relations in the amount 
of $50,725 for a heat stress prevention program in the San Francisco Fire 
Department. (Fire Commission) 



(i) File 148-92-10 . [Grant - State Funds] Resolution authorizing the Director of 
Public Works to apply for, accept and expend grant fundings in the amount of 
$350,000 from the State of California, Resources Agency for providing 
additional environmental enhancement improvements and allowable indirect 
costs in The Embarcadero Surface Roadway Project. (Department of Public 
Works) 



(j) File 148-91-8.2 . [Release of Funds] Requesting release of reserved funds, 
Department of Public Works, in the amount of $325,375, for consultant 
services for planning and environmental work for the Embarcadero Freeway 
Replacement Project. (Funds placed on reserve as stated in Budget Analyst's 
report dated June 10, 1992, pages 17 through 20). (Also see File 148-91-8, 
148-91-8.1 and 148-91-9.) (Department of Public Works) 

ACTION: 



REGULAR CALENDAR 

2. File 65-92-15 . [Giants Candlestick Park Lease Amendment] Ordinance approving a 
lease amendment entered into by the Recreation and Park Commission and the San 
Francisco Giants, which reduces the City's revenue from the agreement by 
approximately $725,000 per year (amount will vary with attendance) through the 
year 1997 and assigns the right to further revenues from the agreement to furnish 
scoreboard to the Giants during the term of the lease. The City further assumes the 
obligations for utilities and maintenance of the playing field at a cost of 
approximately $250,000 per season. (Supervisor Alioto) 

ACTION: 

3. File 65-92-16 . [Sony Scoreboard] Resolution approving an agreement between the 
Recreation and Park Commission and the San Francisco Giants granting all rights to 
revenues from video advertising on the Sony scoreboard at Candlestick Park during 
baseball season to the San Francisco Giants (potential revenues unknown). 
(Supervisor Alioto) 

ACTION: 

4. File 65-92-17 . [Scoreboard] Resolution approving an amendment to the agreement 
to furnish scoreboard between the Recreation and Park Commission and the Sony 
Corporation, which enables the City to expand its use of non-video advertising at 
Candlestick. (Supervisor Alioto) 

ACTION: 

5. File 65-92-18 . [Scoreboard Operating Agreement] Resolution approving an 
amendment to the Scoreboard Operating Agreement between the Recreation and 
Park Commission and the San Francisco Giants, whereby the City will assign its 
rights to an operating fee from Sony to the San Francisco Giants. In return, the 
Giants will assume the obligation and associated costs of operating the scoreboard 
year-round. (Supervisor Alioto) 

ACTION: 

6. File 65-92-19 . [Parking Lot Agreement] Resolution approving an amendment to the 
Candlestick Park parking lot operating agreement between the Recreation and Park 
Commission and the San Francisco Giants, which designates the Giants as exclusive 
operators of the parking lot during baseball season and which reduces the City's 
revenues by approximately $1,150,000 per year. (Supervisor Alioto) 

ACTION: 

7. File 118-92-9 . [Lead] Ordinance amending Health Code by adding Article 26, 
Sections 1601 through 1631 to establish a comprehensive lead hazard reduction 
program. (Supervisors Shelley, Kennedy, Hallinan, Hsieh, Maher, Alioto, Gonzalez, 
Achtenberg) 

(Transferred from City Services Committee 11/17/92 - Fiscal Impact) 

ACTION: 



8. File 101-92-15 . Hearing to consider appropriating $93,097, Department of Public 
Health, for implementing the Medical Waste Generator Procedure Program. 
(Supervisor Alioto) 

ACTION: 

9. File 102-92-7 . Hearing to consider amending the Annual Salary Ordinance, 
Department of Public Health, by adding two positions (Classification 6122 and 
1446). (Supervisor Alioto) 

ACTION: 

10. File 161-92-5.1 . [Redevelopment Agency Budget and Bonds] Resolution approving an 
amendment to the budget of the Redevelopment Agency for fiscal year 1992-93. 
(Supervisor Gonzalez) 

ACTION: 

11. File 197-92-5 . Hearing to consider the final recommendations of the Cultural 
Affairs Task Force. (Supervisor Hallinan) 

(Cont'd from 10/28/92) 

ACTION: 

12. File 127-92-10 . [Fictitious Business Name Filing Requirement] Ordinance 
amending Part HI, Municipal Code, by adding Section 75.1 to require persons filing a 
statement of fictitious business name pursuant to California Business and Professions 
Code Section 17900 et seq. to provide proof of compliance, including payment of all 
appropriate license fees, with all applicable sections of Article 2 of Part in of the 
Municipal Code. (Supervisor Kennedy) 

ACTION: 

13. File 101-92-10.1 . [Government Funding] Ordinance appropriating $86,213,304, 
Public Library, for capital improvement project (main library and branches), 1988 
Library Improvement Bond Program. (Supervisor Gonzalez) 

ACTION: 

14. File 101-92-10.2 . [Government Funding] Ordinance appropriating $3,200,241, Public 
Library-1988 Library Improvement Bond Program, for capital improvement project 
(Public Library Main and branches). RO #92106 (Controller) 

ACTION: 

15. File 38-92-27 . [Acceptance of Gift] Resolution accepting a gift to the San 
Francisco Public Library in the amount of $9,614,568 from the Library Foundation of 
San Francisco to fund building enhancements for new Main Library. (Public Library) 

ACTION: 



16. File 101-92-10 . [Findings - Final Environmental Impact Report] Resolution 
incorporating by reference findings made by the San Francisco Library Commission 
and the Art Commission and adopting further findings pursuant to the California 
Environmental Quality Act relating to the appropriation of funds for the new Main 
Library Project, as analyzed in the San Francisco Main Library Final Environmental 
Impact Report, (FEIR) Case No. 90.808E; companion measure to Files 38-92-27, 
101-92-10.1, and 101-92-10.2. (Department of Public Works) 

ACTION: 

17. File 28-92-12 . [Emergency Repair] Resolution authorizing the Director of the 
Department of Public Works to take necessary measures to protect the health, 
welfare and property of the citizens of San Francisco by performing the necessary 
work to replace the damaged sidewalks, driveways, tree basins, side sewer vents and 
fencing in areas of heavy pedestrian traffic. (Department of Public Works) 

ACTION: 

18. File 97-92-63 . [Cable Television Access Development and Programming Fund) 
Ordinance amending Administrative Code by amending Section 10.117-68, which 
establishes and governs the maintenance of the Cable Television Access 
Development and Programming Fund, by providing for the balance of all funds 
remaining in the fund at the close of each Fiscal Year to be carried forward and 
accumulated in said fund. (Clerk of the Board) 

(Transferred from Administration and Oversight Committee 11/17/92 - 
Fiscal Impact) 

ACTION: 

19. File 172-92-18 . [Agreement] Resolution authorizing the Fire Department to execute 
hold harmless agreements to be entered into between the City and County of San 
Francisco and Jet Skis Manufacturers. (Fire Department) 

ACTION: 



FINANCE COMMITTEE 
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
ROOM 235, CITY HALL 
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102 



IMPORTANT 
HEARING NOTICE 



Govt Documents 
Public Library 
Civic Center 
S-F. CA 94102 



D 0133 



f 

1- 



CITY AND COUNTY 




<PuBtic LiBrary, (Documents (Dept. 
SVFlfal: Jane Hudson 

OF SAN FRANCISCO 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

1390 MARKET STREET, SUITE 1025 

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102 • TELEPHONE (415) 554-7642 



December 7, 1992 



/// 

TO: Finance Committee 

//// 
FROM: Budget Analyst 



SUBJECT: December 9, 1992 Finance Committee Meeting 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 
DEC 8 1992 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



Item la - File 148- 92- 9 

Department: Department of Public Works (DPW) 

Bureau of Engineering 

Item: Resolution authorizing the Director of Public Works to 

expend a State grant for roadway work on City streets in 
accordance with the State-Local Transportation Partnership 
Program (3rd Cycle) and foregoing reimbursement of 
indirect costs. 

Amount: Up to $1,044,335 

Source of Funds: California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) 

Grant Period: June 30, 1992 to June 30, 1995 

Description: The Board of Supervisors previously authorized the DPW to 

apply for and accept funds granted under the State-Local 
Transportation Partnership Program on a continuing basis 
over the ten-year life of the program. Under this program, 
the proposed grant funds are made available for various local 
transportation street improvement projects under SB 300. 
The proposed grant funds would provide monies for the third 
year of the ten year program. 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 9, 1992 



Project Budget: 

Project Limits 


Type 

of Work 


Grant 
Funds 


Local 
Funds 


Total 

Project 

Cost 


Various Locations, 
Street Reconstruction 

(25th Street, Douglass 
Street, Felton Street) 


Reconstruction 


$326,039 


$1,185,508 


$1,511,547 


Various Locations, 
Pavement Renovation 

(8th Ave., 4th., 5th, 
10th Ave., Noriega St., 
12th Ave., 17th Ave., 
Clipper St.) 


Resurfacing 


83,378 


303,169 


386,547 


Sacramento Street 


Resurfacing 


233,523 


849,104 


1,082,627 


Pacific Street 


Resurfacing 


58216 


211,677 


269,893 


Broadway Street 


Resurfacing 


35,375 


128,625 


164,000 


Various Intersections 
(a total of 22) - 
Traffic Signal Modi- 
fication 


Signal 
Rehabilitation 


64,279 


233,721 


298,000 


Various Intersections 
(a total of 38) - 
Traffic Signal Modi- 
fication 


Signalization 


111,301 


404,699 


516,000 


Various Intersections 
(a total of 120) • 
Traffic Signal Con- 
troller Upgrade 


Signalization 


132.224 


480,776 


613,000 


Totals 




$1,044,335 


$3,797,279 $4,841,614 


Local Match: $3,797,279 from the Half-Cent Sales Tax revenues will 
augment grant funds for these projects. 


Indirect Costs: None. The California Departme 


nt of Trans 


sportation 


does not 



allow the use of grant funds for indirect costs. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 9, 1992 



Comments: 1. Mr. Joe Ovadia of the DPW's Bureau of Engineering 

reports that all of the above-listed projects would be handled 
through contractual services. However, Mr. Ovadia advises 
that only two contractors, one for the Traffic Signal 
Modification project (Signal Rehabilitation - total cost of 
$298,000), and the other for the Traffic Signal Controller 
Upgrade project (Signalization - total cost of $613,000), have 
thus far been selected. 

2. Mr. Ovadia reports that the DPW through its Invitation for 
Bids process, has selected King C. Electric, Inc., a certified 
MBE firm, to provide the necessary work for the Traffic 
Signal Modification project (Signal Rehabilitation). As noted 
in the table above, the total amount of the King C. Electric 
contract is $298,000, of which $64,279 represents State 
Caltrans funds and $233,721 represents local matching 
funds. The Purchaser, through its competitive bid process, 
has awarded two purchase orders to General Supply 
Company, a certified MBE firm, to provide the work required 
for the Traffic Signal Controller Upgrade project. The 
purchase orders total $646,017, of which $132,224 represents 
State Caltrans funds and $513,793 represents local match. As 
noted in the table above, the contract for this project was 
originally projected to cost $613,000 ($132,224 in Caltrans 
funds plus $480,776 in local match), or $33,017 less than the 
actual contract amount of $646,017. Mr. Ovadia advises that 
the $33,017 shortfall will be paid for by Sales Tax monies. 

3. Since the DPW has not, as yet, selected all of the necessary 
contractors, $847,832 of the proposed Caltrans funds 
($1,044,335 less $64,279 for the Traffic Signal Modification 
project, and $132,224 for the Traffic Signal Controller 
Upgrade project) should be placed on reserve pending the 
selection of the contractors, the identification of the 
MBE/WBE status of the contractors and the contract budget 
details. 

4. According to Mr. Ovadia, the DPW will issue additional 
requests for bids for the remaining projects by the Spring of 
1993. The DPW anticipates contracting with an additional 
four contractors to perform the remaining projects. 



BOARD OF SU PERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 9, 1992 

5. Mr. Ovadia reports that thus far under the Transportation 
Partnership Program, the State's share of costs have not 
exceeded 30 percent of the total costs for the various 
transportation street improvement projects. This year, the 
State's share of costs represents approximately 21.5 percent 
of the total costs. According to Mr. Ovadia, the amount of the 
State's share is determined by the amount of State funds set 
aside annually for this purpose and the number of local 
jurisdictions that apply for these funds. 

6. As noted above, the grant has a start-up date of June 30, 
1992. However, Mr. Ovadia advises that no expenditures have 
been incurred against the proposed grant. Therefore, an 
amendment for retroactive authority is not necessary. 

7. The DPW has completed a Disability Access Checklist 
which is included in the Board of Supervisors file. 

8. A Summary of Grant Request Form, as prepared by the 
DPW, is attached. 

Recommendation: Amend the proposed resolution to reserve funds totaling 
$847,832, as identified in Comment No. 3 above, pending the 
selection of contractors, the identification of the MBE/WBE 
status of the contractors and the contract budget details. 
Approve the proposed resolution as amended. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

4 



© 4155548243 DPW • STS & HWYS P02 



tttti"No. z ; : - Summary of Grant Rwiiftrt |Rcr.4AQ/9 o] 



Grantor State of California, Cal trans Dl*l*toa Bureau -of Engineering - DPW 

Contact Pcwa i£ e Shafcemla_ Stct ,„ Project Managemen t 

Addrei* 111 Grand Avenue Centaoi t*x*n *2* ° vadla 

Oakland, CA. 94623-0660 : Talapfaoaa (415)554-8250 

Vmooot Reqowted * 1.04^4.335 AppWmttoB n-uHTn. 

lams From 6-30-92 - Q Q-30-93 *f_Hfwtla« • SKpoctad 

Jeilti CotmnUstott ' Board of SnperYisors? Finance Committer _ 

Fall Board _- 



-, rum Descrtntfon: Rgqggst to fjpply fori (aocept god fee^ a Cacw) (cmtfmrartm) frnocariap) Ca^maitanqa to a) 
** ffnnrfaihaamnnntnfll ^ftA.^V nimtlisperiodof 6-30-92 to 6-30-55 



T. Hmtimirri i_—n*_ H— I H * ■ J . i» m ni fcp rJ . n _!__.) 

Thle fi ranfc will partly fund conatruction for resurfacing and reconstruction 

3f Tl Alta Streets under the State-Local TranaportatlonT Partnership P rug r a »^ C y cle. ~ 
lo. 3. Also the jsrant ylH f m*d modlf ligation of crafflc signala.JJ 



TT. Qntenmaa/Ohf#etfT^ 

E*t«nde useful life of coadvay by 10 years. 



TUcCitr will do leas pa^lnj; projecta. 



V. gCnanglnl Tufa-mattem 



CqL-A fid- ^ CbL-C C*** B Rg p. Mafch Annrnvcd frr 

TwoYouAfc ' Pur Y««EOdx, f iuyu i ul 



Stent Amomt 2.674.199 1,641,493 1,044,335 

Personnel . ' _ ______ 

f«r«-lp_.ut ■ , ______ 

Contract Svc 2 J 874 r 199 1,641.493 1,044,335 

Mat & Sirpp. ____________ - - ■_ 

F*_lLU!__j/Sp*-« . ___ ■ 

Other ' ___■_______■_ • - 

fa<Ur«ct C©ft* __ ! 



YT, Pnti ?mtivi? 



_TT. _____ 
F/T CSC 
P/T CSC 
Centrac-usl 



Soarc«(t) of non-grant funding for salaries of CSC emplojcas working part-time on this grant: 
galea Tax . ^ 

Will grant funded ampley.*. b« retained after tnb grant tarm-oat— 7 If to, Eow. 
H/A. Grant aopey is used for contractual aervlctt 

•VTTT. C> Btr*rtntI Kerrlcw Op«a Bid x Sole Soarca <■* 

5 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 9, 1992 

Item lb -File 146-91-1.2 



Department: 
Item: 



Grant Amount: 
Grant Period: 
Source of Funds: 

Description: 



Department of Public Health (DPH), 
Community Public Health 

Resolution authorizing the Department of Public Health to 
expend $118,738 of grant funds, which excludes indirect 
costs, from the State Department of Health Services to fund 
the contractors, Kopell & Associates and Maureen O'Rorke, 
Public Relations and Advertising. 

$118,738 

January 1, 1991 to December 31, 1992 

State Department of Health Services 

The Board of Supervisors previously approved legislation 
(File 146-91-1) authorizing the DPH to apply for, accept and 
expend Tobacco Tax monies in the amount of $1,595,327. 
However, the Board of Supervisors reduced the expend 
authorization by $212,070 from $1,595,327 to $1,383,257, 
pending identification of three professional services 
contractors. These grant funds were designated to fund 
Phase HI of the Comprehensive Tobacco Control Plan. Under 
the Plan a total of $652,517 was budgeted for Professional 
Services for eleven contracts . At the time DPH submitted its 
request for authorization to expend the grant funds, the 
Department had identified only eight of the eleven contractors 
for a total amount of $440,447 or $212,070 less than the total 
budgeted amount of $652,517. The Board of Supervisors has 
previously authorized the expenditure of $93,332 of the 
$212,070 for one contract (File 146-91-1.1) leaving a balance of 
$118,738 for two contracts. 

The DPH is now requesting authorization to expend the 
remaining $118,738. Ms. Alyonik Hrushow of the DPH, 
reports that the Department recently selected Kopell & 
Associates and Maureen O'Rorke, Public Relations and 
Advertising, to implement smoke-free environment outreach 
and media campaigns for San Francisco residents. Maureen 
O'Rorke is a certified WBE firm. Kopell & Associates is a 
certified MBE/WBE firm. The contracts with these two 
agencies are scheduled to commence as soon as contract 
certification is completed by the Department, and would have 
a term of one year. The two contract budgets totaling $118,738, 
are detailed below: 



BOARD OF SUPER VISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 9, 1992 



Maureen OTtorke. Public Relations and Advertising 

Personnel 



Media Director (196 hrs. @ $100/hr.) 


$19,600 


Program Assistant (386 hrs. @ $50/hr.) 


19.300 


Subtotal 


$38,900 


Operating Expenses 




Outreach Booth Design and Production 


$4,000 


Newspaper Ad Placement 


10,000 


Newspaper Ad Design, Copy Production 


5,000 


Promotional Materials 


7,000 


Press Kits 


2,000 


Brochures (2,500), Postcards (2,500) 


6,000 


Bus Advertisements 


3,800 


Certificates, Awards 


200 


Miscellaneous Project Expense 


400 


Subtotal 


$38,400 


Administrative Overhead 


$1,000 


Total 


$78,300 



KopeD and Associates 

Personnel: 

Project Manager (60 hrs. @ $100/hr.) 
Assist. Project Manager (56 hrs. @ $100/hr.) 
Program Assistant (27 hrs. @ $50/hr.) 

Subtotal 
Subcontracts 
Three Consultants (458 hrs.® $60/hr.) 

Total 



$6,000 

5,600 

1.350 

$12,950 

$27, 488 
$40,438 



Comments: 1. As noted above, the grant had an original expiration date of 

December 31, 1992. However, Ms. Hrushow advises that the 
State, in order to allow the DPH sufficient time to expend the 
total grant funds available, has granted an extension of the 
grant period to June 30, 1994. 

2. The DPH advises that City indirect costs are excluded from 
the proposed grant funds because monies for indirect costs 
for the City in the amount of $97,103 were previously included 
in the original grant amount of $1,595,327. 

3. Attached is a "Summary of Grant Request", as prepared by 
DPH, for the original grant amount of $1,595,327. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 9, 1992 



4. The DPH has submitted Disability Access Checklists for 
Maureen O'Rorke, Public Relations and Advertising and 
Kopell & Associates, which are included in the Board of 
Supervisors file. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



•»0«KMWW>W" 



'li<* "Ko.~ HcauJ Commission - Summary of G ninr ; Rpgnf^f | Rev. 4/iQ/90 ~| 

' California Department of Health Services 

Grantor Tobacco Control Section Division Co mmunity Public Health Svcs. 

Contact Person DJLLgflB C- Bal. M.D. Section Bur eau of health Promotion & E ducation 

Address 6007 Folsom Blvd., 2nd Fl. Contact Person Alyonik Hrushow 

■i^r^nrn, PA <?SRiq Telephone 554-2742 _ 

Amount Requested S Application Deadline NA 



Term: From 1/1/91 To 12/31/92 Notification Expected _J*L. 



Health Commission Board of Supervisors: Finaoce Committee 

Full Board ■*■■ 



T. Ttem Description; Request to (apply for) (accept and expend) a (new) (continuation) (allocation) (augmentation to a) 

(o-dc.f^^. —a) grant in the amount of S from the period of to_: 

to provide. services. 

TT. Summary: I C—m ftig—jzmMi «■ <*. -< » mt * +am— m rm &mSim n»f .nitn ) 

AUTHORIZING ADOPTION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE TOBACCO USE CONTROL PLAN AND BUDGET, FOR THE 
PERIOD OF JANUARY 1, 1991, TO DECEMBER 31, 1992. -(REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION TO APPLY B OR, 
ACCEPT AND EXPEND GRANT FUNDS UNDER THIS PLAN AND BUDGET IS TO BE CONSIDERED ELSEWHERE ON 
THE HEALTH COMMISSION AGENDA OF DECEMBER 18, 1990.) ■ " . • " . - 

TTT. OutcomesfObfectives: 



TV. Effect? Of Reduction or Termination of Three Fnnd<^ 



V. Financial Information: t • 

• - Phase I * Phase 

Col. A and TT . -JTTT ^ - Col. D Reo. Match Approved br 

Budgeted Two Years Ago P«x Ycat/Orig. Proposed Chxnte 

Grant Amount $1,603,952 $1,878,048 _____ 

Personnel 641,790 907,471 

Equipment 1,635 3,250 

■Contract Svc. 699,435 652,517 

Mat. & Supp. 63,749 67,375 

Facilities/Space 

Other 127,678 137,775 

Indirect Costs 69,665 109,660 

VT. Patz Procr^in" 

Less carryforward funds 
from the Phase I and II grant 



. 282,721 . 

V IT. Pf-to^nfl Funds available from 

F/T CSC this Grant Request $1,595,327 

P/T CSC I^ZI^^ ~ 

ContracTuil 



Source(s) of non-jrant funding for salaries of CSC employees working part-time on this grant: 



Will grant funded employees be retained after this grant terminates? If so. Ho* 



' V HL — Contractual S<t_v J££51 Open Bid" . Sole Source ' < 8 ~ ~--=. ~^i K*=, 

9 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 9, 1992 

Item lc - File 146-92-73 

Department Department of Public Health (DPH) 

Community Public Health Services 
Family Health Bureau 

Item: Resolution authorizing the Department of Public Health, to 

accept and expend retroactively a grant of $502,010, which 
includes indirect costs in the amount of $7,205, from the 
Centers for Disease Control, and providing for ratification of 
action previously taken. 

Grant Amount: $502,010 

Grant Period: September 30, 1992 to September 29, 1993 

Source of Funds: Centers for Disease Control 



Project: 
Description: 



Project Budget 



Family Planning and HIV Services for Women (Research 
and Support Services) 

The Board of Supervisors previously authorized the DPH to 
apply for these Federal grant funds (File 146-91-58). This is 
the second year of funding for a five-year grant program. The 
proposed grant funds would be used to continue a research 
demonstration model project aimed at HIV risk reduction 
and reproduction health promotion for high risk women 
(ages 18 to 25). The primary target area for the program 
includes the Western Addition and Mission/Visitation Valley 
area. The project will be implemented in four public housing 
projects, which have not, as yet, been selected. The project 
uses volunteer and peer group networks to provide outreach, 
information and workshops designed to promote and 
reinforce behaviors that will result in HIV risk reduction and 
a reduction in unintended pregnancies. 



Personnel FTE 






Project Director .50 


$25,204 




Principal Investigator .10 


10,820 




Subtotal Salaries .60 




$36,024 


Fringe Benefits 




9.726 


Subtotal - Personnel 




$45,750 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



10 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 9, 1992 



Contract Budgets: 



Operating Expenses 
Office Supplies 
Travel 

Subtotal - Operating Expenses 

Indirect Costs 

Contract Services 

UCSF 

Planned Parenthood 

Subtotal - Contract Services 

Total Project Budget 



$1,000 
3.500 



$212,383 
232.172 



4,500 
7,205 



444.555 
$502,010 



Planned Parenthood 






Personnel FTE 






Fiscal Coordinator 0.71 


$24,029 




fflV Coordinator 0.40 


16,796 




Outreach Workers 3.00 


63,000 




Outreach Coordinator 1.00 


27,500 




Subtotal Salaries 5.11 




$131,325 


Fringe Benefits 




23.638 


Subtotal - Personnel 




$154,963 


Outreach and Intervention 






Contraceptives 


$5,000 




Outreach Supplies and Childcare 


6,500 




Conference/Training 


5,000 




Local Travel 


6,000 




Educational Materials 


7,500 




Postage/Delivery 


100 




Survey Incentives (350 @ $15.00) 


5.250 




Subtotal - Outreach and Intervention 


35,350 


Consultants 




13,313 


Indirect Costs 




28.546 


Total 




$232,172 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



11 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 9, 1992 

UCSF 



Personnel 


FTE 






Co-Principal Investigator 


0.25 


$11,839 




Co-Investigator 


0.05 


7337 




Director, Research/Evaluation 


0.50 


22,620 




Fiscal Analyst 


0.10 


4,680 




Sr. Public Admin. Analyst 


0.10 


4,200 




Secretary 


1.00 


22,836 




Respite Project Assistant 


1.00 


25,215 




Data Entry Clerk 


,42 


5.589 




Subtotal Salaries 


3.49 




$104,816 


Fringe Benefits 






19.390 


Subtotal - Personnel 






$124,206 


Ooeratinp Expenses 








Telephone 




2,400 




Office Supplies 




1,926 




Postage 




1,000 




Copying 




1,500 




Questionnaire Form 




3,000 




Incentive Payments 




2,000 




Computer Mainframe Time 




1,000 




Rent 




21,600 




Travel 




5.000 




Subtotal - Operating Expenses 




$39,426 


Consultants 






1,000 


Indirect Cost 






47,751 



Total 



$212,383 



Required Match: None 

Indirect Costs: $7,205 (20 percent of DPH Salaries) 

Comments: 1. Mr. Steve Purser of the DPH reports that since the Federal 

grantor has committed to funding this grant program for five 
year period, DPH was only required to submit an application 
for the first year of funding. 

2. The DPH advises that expenditures have been incurred 
against the proposed grant funds, As such, the proposed 
legislation provides for ratification of action previously taken. 

3. Attached is a copy of the Summary of Grant Request, as 
prepared by the DPH, for this proposed grant. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



12 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 9, 1992 



4. Disability Access Checklists have been prepared for both 
the Planned Parenthood program site and UCSF program 
site and are included in the Board of Supervisors file. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

11 



H>?i' QgEca'fsiaD - Sgsinzn n <" ^r? - ' Sugars! . Uw. -c/io.90 



"Center for Disease Control CPHS 

Division 



In-act rcrson Christine Galavotti Section Family Health 

U«s 255 East Paces Kerry Rd. Mail "Stop E14 ronljr ,- Ptrion a hon Plir . pr 

Atlanta ,UA 30305 Telephone JlgSSfflL. 
iiount Requested S 502.010 Application Deadline - ■ 

rrn,-. Fro™ Sept. 30,1 992^ Sept. 29, 1993 Kollficalie . F , r .. fif<t September 25, ' 1992 

-allh Commission 2 Hoard of Supervisors: Finance Committee 

Full Doard . 

fcjtfm Pf?rr| P tion; Request to (apffljOGS) (accept 2nd expend) a (KffiO (continuation) fcaJaaKOG&foqm^^ 
p*""^*- 41 grant in the amount of S 502,616 " from the period of 9-30-92 to Fggg 

to provide ; services. 

f Summyv: lC~***ynJ~~y.~*t^j^^ .^.w, . cj^y. ~~*< -=r~^„ ^^^-u^.) rAKI A 

lis is an application for the second year of funding in a full year research demonstration 
j id intervention project designed to provide community- level behavioral research and 
" iterventions to prevent HIV infection in women and infants. Behavioral research focuse s on 
n'mary HIV prevention in women by identifying and describing structrual enviorroental an d 
| ;ychosocial factors thought to promote risk reduction in four public housing projects. 

j r. Outcomte/Qbifctivfe: Provision of interventions in housing projects at high risk for HIV" 
i id Perinatal NIV via unplanned pregnancies will be targeted using a quasi -experimental design 
• > compare two different' conditions. Cognitive, behavioral, clinical; structural, and 
nviromental changes will be measured and compared between- control/comparison groups. - 

\ . EGEaaS "I ^-durtio* or T..rTT,ingtinn of TVe- ^U"(?e: . .' 

l *ovision of interventional research and support services for women at high risk for HIV 

•ansmission through .community level behavioral research will not be possible. Valuable 

r ;search data on a population that .is extremely hard to reach will be lost. 

. Financial infnrmelion- 

Col. B Col. C • Col. D Rcc M?:rn Aneroid br 

?*SI Yiir/OHr. rropoi-i Ciir-i- 

kat Aaoeat 770.248 502,010 (268.238 ) ' 

'-soacd 68,357 45,750 ( 22,607 ) 



.otisaen; 



: OD tract Svc. 685,326 44 4,555 (240,771' 

1st. £ Sttp ? . 1,000 1,000 Q 



'2 cili tits/So j:: 



focr 4,800 3,500 (1,300) 

Ldircct Cos:s 10.765 7,205 • (3,560) 



r>i 



CSC 



|/T csc 1.2 .60 T60) 

|o=:rac:u a i 9.3 9.22 (.08) 

Sou.-cc(s) of ase-cras; rs=s:-; for sslzrits of CSC employees -o.-kiss; 

Wn\ jrae: J^;c;i t~o)o--.-.i d: r;:2i:;c af; = r ".'cis z'-^'- leraleaies? If 



• VT t T . <-„-,. 



■?■-:••;) c. -,;-.«:. o ? :: Bid So!: So-.-:: 






Memo to Finance Committee 
December 9, 1992 

Item Id -File 146-92-74 

Department: Department of Public Health (DPH) 

Community Public Health Services 
Family Health Bureau 

Item: Resolution authorizing the Department of Public Health, to 

accept and expend a grant of $566,947, which includes 
indirect costs in the amount of $7,068, from the Centers for 
Disease Control, and providing for ratification of action 
previously taken. 

Grant Amount: $566,947 

Grant Period: September 30,1992 to September 29,1993 

Source of Funds: Centers for Disease Control 

Project: Family Planning and HIV Services for Women (Clinical and 

Educational Services) 

Description: The Board of Supervisors previously authorized the DPH to 

apply for these Federal grant funds (File 146-91-59). This is 
the second year of funding for a five-year grant program. The 
proposed grant funds would be used to continue to provide 
comprehensive family planning and clinical services, 
including HrWSexually Transmitted Disease (STD) 
education and prevention to 1100 women at high risk for 
STD's and unplanned pregnancies. Services would be 
provided to clients at six month intervals at Bayview Hunters 
Point Foundation, Dolores Street Community Church, 
Haight Ashbury Free Clinic and Glide Memorial Church. 
The project would evaluate the success of service 
interventions by measuring such outcomes as the clients' 
utilization of family planning services, reproductive health 
services, STD/HP7 and drug treatment services, and 
decreases in unintended pregnancies and STD rates. 

Project Budget: DPH Administ r a tion 



Personnel FTE 






Project Director .50 


$25,204 




Project Investigator .09 


9,738 




Family Planning Coordinator .01 


337. 




Subtotal Salaries .60 




$35339 


Fringe Benefits 




9.542 


Subtotal - Personnel 




$44,881 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



15 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 9, 1992 



Operating Expenses 
Travel (to CDC/Atlanta or as 

otherwise designated by CDC - 

flights, hotels, meals, & 

registration @ $1,000 x 2 people x 

3 trips/yr.) 
Materials and Supplies 
Laboratory Tests 
Photocopying 

Subtotal - Operating Expenses 

Indirect Costs 

Contract Services 

UCSF Contract 
Planned Parenthood Contract 
Subtotal 

Total Project Budget 



$6,000 
2,400 
4,000 
1.100 



$113,979 
387.519 



13,500 
7,068 



501.498 
$566,947 



Contract Budgets: Planned Parenthood 



Personnel 


FTE 




Fiscal Coordinator 


0.71 


$24,029 


Finance Director 


0.05 


2,625 


Personnel Manager 


0.01 


414 


Payroll Clerk 


0.01 


232 


Outreach Workers 


5.00 


105,000 


Outreach Coordinator 


1.00 


27,500 


Clerical 


0.10 


1,756 


Subtotal Salaries 


6.88 




Fringe Benefits 






Subtotal - Personnel 






Clinic Costs 






Initial Visits (600 @ $180) 




$108,000 


Follow-up Visits (300 @ $109) 




32.700 


Subtotal 







$161,556 

29.080 

$190,636 



140,700 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



16 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 9, 1992 



Outreach 



Contraceptives 




$5,000 




Outreach Supplies 




3,000 




Local Travel 




5,000 




Educational Materials 




2,000 




Postage/Delivery 




100 




Survey Incentives: 








Recruitment (350 @ $5.00) 




1,750 




Initial (350 @ $10.00) 




3,500 




Follow-up (210 @ $15.00) 




3.150 




Subtotal - Outreach 






23,500 


Indirect Costs 






32.683 


Total 






$387,519 


UCSF 








Personnel 


FTE 






Co-Principal Investigator 


0.10 


$15,674 




Research Director 


0.50 


20,800 




Administrative Asst. U 


0.25 


6,477 




Data Entry Clerk 


1.00 


22.812 




Subtotal Salaries 


1.85 




$65,763 


Fringe Benefits 






13.594 


Subtotal - Personnel 






$79357 


Administrative Costs 








Telephone 




$1,000 




Computer Mainframe Time 




1,000 




Forms 




1,143 




Subtotal - Administrative Costs 




3,143 


Operating Costs 








Rent 




$10,000 




Travel (CDC - Atlanta) 




1,500 




Subtotal - Operation 


Costs 




11,500 


Indirect Costs 






19,979 


Total 






$113,979 


Required Match: None 








Indirect Costs: $7,068 (20 percent of DPH Salaries) 







BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



17 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 9, 1992 

Comments: 1. Mr. Steve Purser of the DPH reports that since the Federal 

grantor has committed to funding this grant program for a 
five year period, DPH was only required to submit an 
application for the first year of funding. 

2. The DPH advises that expenditures have been incurred 
against the proposed grant funds. As such, the proposed 
legislation provides for ratification of action previously taken. 

3. Attached is a copy of the Summary of Grant Request, as 
prepared by the DPH, for this proposed grant. 

4. Disability Access Checklists have been prepared for both 
the Planned Parenthood program site and the UCSF 
program site and are included in the Board of Supervisors 
file. 

Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution 



BOARD OF S UPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

18 



]±zzi dgECTisasa - Easmizo: of f-^r* 1 B^ga^sl . . I Rev. 4/10.90 J 



Centers for Disease Control - Division " p HS 



.ntact rcrton Christine Galavotti section Family Health 

Jdrcsi 255 East Paces Ferry Rd. Mail St op E14 contact p-rcn„ Stephen Purser, NPH 

Atlanta, Georgia 3030b Telephone (415) 554-2563 

nounl Requested S 566,947 Application Deadline tlulv 26. 199T 

rm: From 09/30/92 To 09/29/93 Notification rrp f n f d September 25, 1992 

:alth Commission Board of Supervisors: Finance Committee ^ 

Full Doard 

.T'ft" Pf^crlption; Rcouca to (apffy&X) (accept znd expend) a («*#) (ajndnuanc>n) ^lK^«iW?r^P»^^8^^ . 
3^ vr~r^« — *) ET2Iil - m ^ amount G f s 566 , 947 from the period of 09/30/92 to 09/29/93 

10 provide Family planning and HIV services. sen-ices. 

_Summ?'-vT Ic^^^^r.^A^u - -— w.^ *~^ ~*r-^~) PART B 

This is the second year of funding for a clinical demonstration project designed to 
provide clinical and educational services for high risk women in non-traaitional setti ngs. 
Hypotheses and strategies for preventing HIV Infection among women ana inrants are tes ted 
in high risk neighborhoods. 

I Ootcomfe/obicctivc-:: A street outreach team will continue to recruit high risk women 
into non-traditional family planning clinics providing health services. Services will 
be provided every six months and the success of the interventions will be measurea usi ng 
c,nrh outcomes as utilization of family planning, reproductive health, STD/HIV and drug 
treatment services, decreases in unintended pregnancies and Slu rates. 

Provision of medical, counseling, and education services for women at high risk for 
HIV transmission through commumty-Dased clinic Sites will not be possible. A 
valnahlP opportunity to provide clinical care to women who are extremely hard to reach 
arid serve will be lost. 

financial Information: 

Col. A Col. B Col. C Col. D P.tc. Kz;ch Aneroid frr 

TwoVci.TA;o ? ia Ytir/OHj. Proposed Cctnrc 

Lat Aaouat 321.178 (566,947) +245,769 " 

•-rsonnel 46,300 ( 44,881) - 1,419 



Quisatn; 



jotraet Src 250,787 (501,498) + 250,711 

=t. £ Su P? . 12,000 ( 7,500) - 4,500 

cilitits/Spzcc 



;ber (travel) 4,800 ( 6,000) + 1 ,200 

Costs 7,291 ( 7,068)- 223 






esc 



|r esc .7 .59 - .11 



z\ 2.0 8.73 + 6.73 



o--rcc(s) of DOD-rr 2 ;; r-j-cir; '.or sprits of CSC c^olovccs workie; 




pT7T. r^.--....., 



:d'. :c.-EaiE2les? if so. Hos? 



0?:q Bid Soli Sour:: x [»-,.«.ci^«rfci=.»e;«=l 



19 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 9, 1992 

Item le - File 146-92-75 



Department 



Item: 



Grant Amount: 
Grant Period: 
Source of Funds: 
Project: 
Description: 



No. of Persons 
to be Served: 



Department of Public Health (DPH) 
Community Public Health Services 
Family Health Bureau 

Resolution authorizing the Department of Public Health, to 
apply for, retroactively, accept and expend a grant of $358,922, 
which includes administrative costs in the amount of $1,700, 
from California Family Planning Council, Inc., and 
providing for ratification of action previously taken. 

$358,922 

January 1, 1993 to December 31, 1993 

California Family Planning Council, Inc. 

Family Planning and Pregnancy Testing Services 

The proposed grant would continue to provide funding for 
family planning services to low income, ethnically diverse 
women, ages 15-44, in San Francisco. This funding has been 
provided since 1971, under Title X of the Public Health 
Services Act. The California Family Planning Council, Inc., 
located in Los Angeles, has administered Federal family 
planning funds throughout California since 1983. The 
proposed grant funds represent approximately 30 percent of 
family planning funds in San Francisco which, together with 
funds provided by the State Office of Family Planning (45%) 
and the City's General Fund (25%), provides for 
approximately 13,100 patient visits annually at 17 facilities. 
These facilities include the district health centers, UCSF, the 
Special Programs for Youth (SPY) network of youth centers, 
women's shelters, and other sites. Services include medical 
examinations, pregnancy testing, contraceptive counseling, 
contraceptive supplies, and other reproductive health 
services. 



Approximately 13,100 patient visits in 1993 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



20 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 9, 1992 



Project Budget Personnel 



Effi Amount 



2593 Health Program Coordinator HI 
2591 Health Program Coordinator H 
2328 Nurse Practitioner 
2587 Health Worker m 
Fringe Benefits 
Subtotal 

Operating Expenses 

Materials and Supplies 
Laboratory Equipment 
Travel 

Subtotal 

Contractual Services 

UCSF Mandated Contract* 
Pharmacy and Cytology Services 
Subtotal 

Administrative Costs 



0.8 
1.0 
0.8 
Q£ 

3.1 



$42,078 
39,520 
4337 
14,079 
30.976 



$170,000 



$20,222 
2,000 

2.000 



$125,000 
38.000 



24,222 



163,000 



Total Proposed Grant 



$358,922 



* The DPH reports that the Federal grantor mandates that 
UCSF provide the hospital based services for this program. 

Required Match: None 

Indirect Costs: It is the policy of the funding agency not to pay indirect costs, 

but the agency will award one percent of personnel costs to 
defray a<lministrative expenses. 

Comments: 1. The DPH reports that the application for the proposed 

grant, which was due on December 1, 1992, has already been 
submitted by the Department. Therefore, the proposed 
legislation provides for ratification of action previously taken. 

2. The proposed grant amount of $358,922 is the same as the 
amount awarded in 1992. 

3. Attached is the Summary of Grant Request, as prepared by 
the DPH, for the proposed grant. 



BOARD OF S UPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



21 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 9, 1992 



4. Disability Access Checklists for the 17 facilities where 
services will be provided are included in the Board of 
Supervisors file. 

ion: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

22 



Item - No. ,_ 



H»-?11r> CTnm' c ^'T' 



. <;. 



mm? 



— r nf r.r?pt 



IRcy. 4/10/PO 



Cramor Cal. Family Plann ing Council. Inc. 

Contact Terson Thomas Kring 

Address 3600 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 600 

Los Angeles, CA 90010 



Family Health Bureau 



Division CPHS 

Section- 

Contact Person Stephen Purser 

Telephone 554-2569 



358.922 



Amount Requested S 

Term: From 01/01/93 To 12/31/93 

Health Commission 



Application Deadline September 15, 1992 
Notification Expected December 15, 1992 

Doard of Supervisors: Finance Committee 

Full Doard . . 

y. Ttem r>r<crlniion: Request to (apply for) (accept 2nd expend) a (KM) (continuation) (2DQQfl&i9^&gJ8£KSG§SH£e) 
ig-o. •«"*•<*- --*> grant - m ft- amounl of S 358.922 from the period of 01/01/93 to 12/31/93 

to provide family planning and pregnancy fesMng services. 

T T , Summary? (c—uan^^ry.— rfjiwa i; »«-w»»»^«j»~v«* «»<*». udr^nkn) 
This grant will enable the continuation of family planning and pregnancy testing serv- 
ices to San Francisco residents. The target population consists of low-income, ethnic- 
ally diverse women ages 15-44.-- Services will be provided at various Health Department 
District Health Centers. 



TTT. Outcome WQb'c c tivf <: 

To provide medical examinations and contraceptive supplies in compliance with CFPC 
requirements for approximately 13, 100 patient visits. 



TV. F,r(y r t* nf Tj -ducting 



gala 



of TK.<. Fun(5c; 



Increases in unplanned pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. 



Financial Tnfnrmetion: 



Grzat Asnouat 
? ersonn el 
Equipment 
"Contract Sve. 

M2t. £: Supp. 
?2cilities/Sp zee 
Other (Travel) 
Indirect Costs 



i ^o Vesn A«o 

35«.q?? 

170.000 
2.000 

163.000 

20.222 

-0- 



2,000 



1,700 



VT 



n 



^l^_ 



VTT. 



F/T CSC 
P/T CSC 

C o a : .- 2 c ; u z 1 



Soarce(s) of aoa-jrzat f-acir. 
None 




170.000 
2.000 

163.000 

20,222 

-0- 

2,000 

1,700 



Col. c 

Proposed 

358,922 


Col 
Chz. 


-0- 


170,000 




-0- 


2,000 




-0- 


163,000 




-0- 


20,222 




-0- 


-0- 




-0- 


2,000 




-0- 


1,700 • 




-0- 








4 




-0- 


1 




-0- 


3 




-0- 



P.rc. Match 



Ancmv?d b_r 



S2l2ri:s of CSC eraulovces •forkic; azrt-tiiae oa 



» ill gran: fuadtd employees be retziaed 2fisr this jraa: terminates? If so, How? 

Yes, through other funding sources and seniority in the Civil Service System. 



LgUI ^O^r,.,,! 



il Or.a 



So!; Sou: 



XX 



^Sole source approved by Health Commission through 12/31/93, 5/16/89 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 9, 1992 

Item If -File 147-92-5 



Department: 
Item: 



Grant Amount: 
Grant Period: 
Source of Funds: 

Project: 
Description- 



Budget: 



Public Library 

Resolution authorizing the San Francisco Public Library to accept 
and expend funds available from the United States Department of 
Education for a Project Read Outreach Program, including indirect 
costs of $1,644. 

$34,530 

October 1, 1992 through September 30, 1993 

U.S. Department of Education, Library Services and Construction 
Act (LSCA), Title IV 

Project Read Student Support Services 

The proposed grant funds would be used for student support 
services for Project Read. Project Read is the adult literacy 
program of the San Francisco Public Library. The Project Read 
program offers English-speaking adults, who lack basic reading 
and writing skills, free confidential tutoring by trained volunteers. 

The student support services, which would be funded with the 
proposed grant funds, would include strengthening learner 
involvement in the Program, through creating a structure and 
opportunity for adult learners to increase their education and 
contribute to the Program and to each other. Proposed projects 
include an Adult Learner Council, Writing Workshops, Quarterly 
Workshops and an Adult Learner Event. 

All of the proposed grant funds used for Project Read Student 
Support Services would be provided under a contractual agreement 
to the Friends of the San Francisco Library. The Friends of the San 
Francisco Library would use the grant funds as follows: 



Personnel 

Student Support Services 
Coordinator (0.75 FTE) 
Fringe Benefits (@14 percent) 
Personnel Total 

Su pplies (includes notebooks, printing and 
postage) 

Other (includes Writing Instructor's Fee, 
Guest Speaker Fee and Instructional 
Workshop) 



$21,216 

2.970 

$24,186 



1,500 



7.200 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



24 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 9, 1992 



Total Direct Charges $32,886 

Indirect Costs (approximately 
five percent of the total direct charges) 1.644 

Total $34,530 

Required Match: None. 

Indirect Costs: $1,644 or approximately 5 percent of total direct charges of $32,886. 

Comments: 1. As noted above, the proposed grant period began on October 1, 

1992. According to Ms. Ana Linder of the Public Library, because of 
adniinistrative delays, the proposed grant funds have already been 
accepted and expended by the Public Library. Therefore, the 
proposed resolution should be amended to authorize the Public 
Library to accept and expend the proposed grant funds 
retroactively. 

2. According to Ms. Linder, contractual services would be provided 
under a sole-source contract to the Friends of the San Francisco 
Public Library. Ms. Linder reports that the Friends of the Library 
started Project Read in 1983, and thus is very knowledgeable about 
the program. In addition, Friends of the Library would provide 
a<lministrative support services free of charge. 

3. Friends of the Library is a non-profit organization, and therefore 
is not subject to the Human Rights Commission's MBE/WBE and 
LBE requirements. 

4. Attached is the Summary of Grant Request form completed by 
the Public Library. 

5. The Disability Access Checklist is in the file. 

Reco mm endations: 1. Amend the proposed resolution to authorize the Public Library to 
accept and expend the proposed grant funds retroactively. 

2. Approve the proposed grant funds as amended. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



25 




jcrsisre numoe*.. 



Grant Application Information Form , 

A document required to accompany a proposed resolution 
Authorizing a Department to Apply for a Grant 



To: The Board of Supervisors 
Attn: Clerk of the Board 

The following describes the grant referred to in the accompanying 
resolution: 

Department: San Francisco Public Library/ Project Read 

Contact Person: Ana Linder Telephone: 557-4388 

_ . „,-,_, Student Support Services 

Project Title: lf_ , 

Grant Source: Dept. of Education LSCA title VI ; 

Proposed (New / Continuation) Grant Project Summary: 

Project Read is the adult literacy program of the San Francisco Public Library. It 
offers English-speaking adults, who lack basic reading and writing skills, free 
confidential tutoring by trained volunteers. Project Read seeks funds to enhance 
program effectiveness. 

One need that has evolved as Project Read has grown and matured is the need for 
stronger learner involvment in our program, and more opportunities for adult .• 
learners to meet and learn from one another. Many adult learners who come to 
Project Read for help feel that they, alone, have problems reading and writing. 
The shame they feel ofren keeps them isolated. We propose to create structure 
and opportunity for adult learners to increase their education and contribute 
to the program and to each other. Proposed designs include: an Adult Learner 
Council, Writing Workshops, Quarterly Workshops and an Adult Learner Event. 



Amount of Grant Funding Applied for: $ 34.530 

Maximum Funding Amount Available: $ 35 ,ooo 

Required Matching Funds: -o- 



Number of Positions Created and Funded: 3/4 

IND/K0C T COS* T S/o ~1 lb** 

Amount to be Spent on Contractual Services: $ 32,886 



j jt*tl*° 



Will Contractual Services be put out to Bid? no ■' 

Friends of the San Francisco Public Library have been contracted and have managed 
Project Read grants for years free of administrative charges. 



26 



gZ0£[Page*2 






Term of ! Grant 



October 1, 1992 - September 30, 1993 



Date Department Notified of Available funds: September 6, 199 2-: 
Application Due Date: December 13, 1991 



Grant Funding Guidelines and Options (from RFP, grant announcement, or 
appropriations legislation): 



See Attached 



7d~-M r D. 



Department Head Approval 



27 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 9, 1992 

Item lg -File 147-92-6 



Department 
Item: 



Grant Amount: 
Grant Period: 
Source of Funds: 

Project: 
Description: 



Budget 



Public Library 

Resolution authorizing the San Francisco Public Library to accept 
and expend funds available from the United States Department of 
Education for a Project Read Outreach Program, including indirect 
costs of $1,383. 

$29,033 

October 1, 1992 through September 30, 1993 

U.S. Department of Education, Library Services and Construction 
Act (LSCA), Title VI 

Project Read Outreach Services 

The proposed grant funds would be used for outreach services for 
Project Read. Project Read is the adult literacy program of the San 
Francisco Public Library. The Project Read program offers 
English-speaking adults, who lack basic reading and writing skills, 
free confidential tutoring by trained volunteers. 

The proposed grant funds would be used to develop an outreach 
program for student and minority volunteers who act as tutors. 
Specifically, the outreach plan would involve community agencies, 
businesses, churches, professional organizations, tutors and 
students, in order to meet the goal of increasing the number of 
African- American and Latino volunteers in the Project Read 
program. 

All of the proposed grant funds used for Project Read student 
Support Services would be provided under a contractual agreement 
to the Friends of the San Francisco Library. The Friends of the San 
Francisco Library would use the grant funds as follows: 



Personnel 

Volunteer Manager (0.75 FTE) 
Fringe Benefits (@15 percent) 
Personnel Total 

Su pplies (includes tutor recognition 
plaques, printing and postage) 

Other (includes Continuing Education 
Sessions and Learning Assessment 
Consultations) 



$21,000 

3.150 

$24,150 



1,000 



2.500 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



28 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 9, 1992 



Total Direct Charges $27,650 

Indirect Cost (approximately 
five percent of the total direct charges) 1.383 

Total $29,033 

Required Match: None. 

Indirect Costs: $1,383 or approximately 5 percent of total direct charges of $27,650. 

Comments: 1. As noted above, the proposed grant period began on October 1, 

1992. According to Ms. Ana Linder of the Public library, because of 
administrative delays, the proposed grant funds have already been 
accepted and expended. Therefore, the proposed resolution should 
be amended to authorize the Public Library to accept and expend the 
proposed grant funds retroactively. 

2. According to Ms. Linder, contractual services would be provided 
under a sole-source contract to the Friends of the San Francisco 
Public Library. Ms. Linder reports that the Friends of the Library 
started project Read in 1983, and thus is very knowledgeable about 
the program. In addition, Friends of the Library would provide 
administrative support services free of charge. 

3. Friends of the Library is a non-profit organization, and therefore 
is not subject to the Human Rights Commission's MBE/WBE and 
LBE requirements. 

4. Attached is the Summary of Grant Request form completed by 
the Public Library. 

5. The Disability Access Checklist is in the file. 

Recommendations: 1. Amend the proposed resolution to authorize the Public Library to 
accept and expend the proposed grant funds retroactively. 

2. Approve the proposed grant funds as amended. 



BOARD OF S UPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



29 



rixe numcer 



Grant Application Information Form 

A document required to accompany a proposed resolution 
Authorizing a Department to Apply for a Grant 



To: The Board of Supervisors :■ 'SS 

Attn: Clerk of the Board ^ 7^ % 

The following describes the grant referred to in ttge accompanying 

resolution: - t ',* 

Department: San Francisco Public Library/ Project Read 

Contact Person: Ana Linder Telephone: ss7-^rr 

Project Title: Outreach Project 

Grant Source: Dept. of Education, lsca title vi 

Proposed (New / Continuation) Grant Project Summary: 

Project Read is the adult literacy program of the San Francisco Public Library.. 
It offorb English-speaking adults, who lack basic reading and writing skills, 
free confidential tutoring by trained volunteers. Project Read seeks funds to 
implement a student and minority tutor outreach project. 

A number of barriers must be overcome for a person to come to Project Read. 
Getting the word out to potential students is a challenge because adults 
who lack reading skills often lack access to information. A well-developed 
outreach plan can do much to pave the way to literacy for an increasing number 
of adults. To reach potential minority volunteers, a personal, culturally 
appropriate approach is necessary. Project Read proposes to implement an 
outreach plan that involves, community agencies, businesses, churches, professional 
organizations, tutors and students to invite more adult learners and more 
African-American and Latino volunteers to join our program. 



Amount of Grant Funding Applied for: ? 29.033 



Maximum Funding Amount Available: ? 35.000 



Required Matching Funds y -o- 



Number of Positiorfs>.<freated and Funded: V4 _/fl V 5 199! 

Amount to be Spent on Cont r actua 1 /ServiceV. ? 27,650 f 

Will Contractual Services be put out to Bid? no 

Friends of the San Francisco Public Library have been contracted and have managed 
Project Read grants for years free of administrative charges. 



30 



Grant Application. Information Form 
Page 2 



Term of Grant 



October 1, 1992 - September 30 , 1993 



Date Department Notified of Available funds: 
Application Due Date: December 13, 1991 



September 6, 1992 



Grant Funding Guidelines and Options (from RFP, grant announcement or 
appropriations legislation): 



See Attached 



%u^M c£l 



Department Head Approval 



31 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 9, 1992 

Item lh -File 140- 92-1 



Department: 
Item: 

Amount: 
Source of Funds 
Grant Period: 
Grant Program: 
Description: 



Fire Department 

Resolution authorizing the Fire Department to accept and 
expend a State grant for a Heat Stress Prevention Program, 
including $2,540 for indirect costs 

$50,725 

California Department of Industrial Relations 

One year from approval of the proposed grant 

Heat Stress Prevention Program 

The proposed grant funded Heat Stress Prevention Program 
would be a new training program to educate firefighters 
regarding activities which lead to dehydration and methods 
to prevent this condition from occurring. According to the 
Fire Department, heat stroke and heat exhaustion accounted 
for 1.2 percent of the illness reported to the International 
Association of Firefighters 1990 Death and Injury Survey. 
However, Dr. Deborah J. Owen, Fire Surgeon for the Fire 
Department, indicates that many injuries incurred by 
Firefighters may be the result of dizzyness that results from 
heat stress. 

For the first phase of the program the Fire Department will 
conduct tests at two Fire Stations for symptoms related to 
heat stress. The results of the medical tests will be used in 
educating 50 Firefighters regarding the causes and 
symptoms of heat stress and ways of preventing heat stress. 
The 50 Firefighters will then train all other Firefighters in 
the department. A video will be produced as a training aide. 

The program training will emphasize drinking fluids at fire 
scenes to prevent the dehydration that leads to heat stress. In 
order to encourage the drinking of fluids at fire scenes, the 
program will purchase 65 drinking water dispensers that 
will be mounted on fire engines and ladder trucks. 



BOARD OF SU PERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



32 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 9, 1992 



Grant Budget: Personnel Costs 






Project Facilitator 


$2,500 




Performance and Eval. Coordinator 


1,000 




Research Assistant 


1,200 




Video Production Facilitator 


2,500 




Bookkeeper-Accountant 


1,000 




Secretary-Typist 


500 




Subtotal-Personnel Costs 




$8,700 


Support Services 






Video Production and Development 


$2,460 




Video Training and Distribution 


1,000 




Learning Program 


2,000 




Medical Testing 


1,000 




Maintenance of Program 


500 




Subtotal-Support Services 




6,960 


Operating Costs 






Supplies 


$500 




Travel and Meals 


715 




Training Materials: 






40-Video Tapes 


400 




Medical Test Materials 


3,400 




Posters/Bulletins 


1,000 




Printing 


680 




Postage 


580 




Medical Testing Materials 


150 




Water Dispenser Materials 


2.000 




Subtotal-Operating Costs 




9,425 


Equipment 






65 Water Dispensers 


$2,600 




Video Production Equipment Rental 


3,000 




Subtotal-Equipment 




5,600 


Contractual Services 






Health Educator 


$4,000 




Curriculum Development Consultant 


500 




Video Production Company 


13,000 




Subtotal-Contractual Services 




17,500 


Indirect Costs 




2,540 


Total Proposed Grant 




$50,725 


Local Match: None required 






Indirect Costs: $2,540 (five percent of the grant) 






BOARD OF SUPERVLSORS 







BUDGET ANALYST 



33 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 9, 1992 

Comments: 1. The Fire Department applied for the proposed grant on 

May 1, 1992. Therefore, the proposed resolution should be 
amended to ratify action previously taken. 

2. As of the writing of this report, the Fire Department has 
not submited a Disability Check List or a Summary of Grant 
Request. Therefore, the proposed resolution should be 
continued for one week to allow the department time to 
submit these required forms. 

Recommendations: 1. Amend the proposed resolution to ratify action previously 
taken in applying for the proposed grant. 

2. Continue the amended resolution one week to allow the 
department time to complete and submit the Disability Check 
List and a Summary of Grant Request forms. 



BOARD OF SUPERVLSORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



34 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 9, 1992 

Item li - File 148-92-10 



Department 
Item: 



Grant Amount: 
Grant Period: 

Source of Funds: 

Project: 
Description: 



Department of Public Works (DPW) 

Resolution authorizing the Department of Public Works to 
apply for, accept and expend, a grant from the State of 
California, Resources Agency for providing additional 
environmental enhancement improvements and allowable 
indirect costs in the Embarcadero Surface Roadway Project. 

$350,000 

If approved, funds will be available for expenditure during a 
two year period beginning with the date of approval. 

State of California Resources Agency - Environmental 
Enhancement and Mitigation Program (AB 471) 

Waterfront Roadway Tree Enhancement Project 

The Waterfront Roadway Tree Enhancement Project is a 
component of the Waterfront Transportation Projects 
including the Embarcadero Surface Roadway Project, the F- 
Embarcadero Historic Streetcar Line and the MUNI Metro 
Extension. 

The proposed project will plant 745 sycamore and canary 
island palm trees in the median and along the sidewalks of the 
Embarcadero Roadway of the North, South and King Segments 
of the Waterfront Transportation Projects (see attached map). 
The trees will help to mitigate carbon dioxide buildup that will 
be associated with the reconstructed roadway and extension of 
the MUNI Metro light rail system. The Waterfront Projects 
will open up the Embarcadero to pedestrians and bicyclists and 
the trees will be a major contributor to this enhanced public 
access. 

The Embarcadero Roadway Project is included in the adopted 
State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) and in the 
locally certified capital outlay program of the San Francisco 
County Transportation Authority. The total roadway 
development and construction budget is $93.7 million, 
excluding the budgets for MUNI Metro Extension and the F- 
Embarcadero Historic Streetcar Line. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



35 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 9, 1992 



The proposed Tree Enhancement Project will also utilize funds 
provided from the 1-280 Interstate Transfer, the local 1/2 cent 
Transportation Sales Tax and a Tree Dedication program 
totaling $1,964,050 as follows: 

Funding Sources Amount 
State Environmental Enhancement & Mitigation 

Grant (subject of this legislation) $ 350,000 

1-280 Interstate Transfer 1,286,942 

1/2 cent Transportation Sales Tax 227,108 

Tree Dedication Program 100.000 

Total $ 1,964,050 



Project Budget 

Item Description 

Sycamore Trees, 36-inch box 
Sycamore Trees, 24-inch box 
Canary Island Palm Trees 
Tree Grates 
Imported Planting Soil 
180-day landscaping maintenance 

Subtotal 
Administrative & Contingency Costs at 10 percent 

Total 

Required Match: None required for State funds. 



Ouantitv 


-Unit CpBt 


Total Cost 


627 


$800 


$ 501,600 


3 


300 


900 


115 


6,000 


690,000 


384 


750 


288,000 


lump sum 


- 


236,000 


lump sum 


- 


69.000 



$1,785,500 
178.550 
$1,964,050 



Indirect Costs: The total project budget of $1,964,050 includes indirect costs of 

$89,275 

Comments: 1. The Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation Program 

(EEMP) is a $100 million State of California Grant Program 
authorized by AB 471 which is distributing $10 million 
annually over ten years in individual grants up to $500,000 for 
local highway landscaping and urban forestry projects. 

2. Mr. James Cheng, DPW Project Manager for the 
Embarcadero Roadway Project, advises that the Roadway Plan 
initially did not specify the types of trees to be planted. On 
January 22, 1992, after several public hearings, the Port 
Commission approved a resolution which determined that the 
median trees will be Canary Island Palm Trees and the 
landside and sidewalk trees will be Sycamore trees. The 
distribution of trees for the total project cost of $1,964,050 is as 
follows: 



BOARD OF S UPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



36 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 9, 1992 








Waterfront 
Location 


Palms 


Svcamores 


Total 
Trees 


North Embarcadero 
South Embarcadero 
King Street Segment 
Total Trees 


50 
65 

115 


120 
190 
320 
630 


170 
255 
220. 

745 



3. Mr. Leonard Tom of DPW reports that two other sources of 
funds, the 1-280 Interstate Transfer totaling $1,286,942 and 1/2 
cent Transportation Sales Tax totaling $227,108, have already 
been authorized and committed to the Waterfront Roadway 
Tree Enhancement Project. 

4. The fourth source of funding for the subject project is a Tree 
Dedication Program totaling $100,000 (assuming 25 dedicated 
trees @ $4,000 per dedication). This program is being 
established to allow private individuals or businesses to 
contribute to the cost of planting trees on the Embarcadero. 
Acknowledgment of each contribution will be made at 
appropriate locations in the roadway. A target of $100,000 has 
been set for contributions from this program. Contributions 
received will be used to offset Transportation Sales Tax Funds 
which would be the alternative source of funds if the Tree 
Dedication Program were not successful. 

5. Mr. Tom indicates that, if the $350,000 grant application is 
not approved by the State of California Resources Agency, DPW 
would transfer additional funds from the 1/2 cent 
Transportation Sales Tax for this project. 

6. In January 1992, DPW applied to the State of California 
Resources Agency for $500,000 under the subject program to 
assist with the Waterfront Roadway Tree Enhancement Project 
(File 148-92-1) as part of the State's 1991-92 funding cycle, but 
was not awarded any funds. (The San Francisco Friends of the 
Urban Forest was the only local applicant that received 
$176,000 for a "Neighborhood Mitigation Project" from this 
State funding cycle.) 

7. Maintenance and care of the proposed trees to be planted as 
part of the Waterfront Roadway Tree Enhancement Project will 
be provided by DPW as part of its overall maintenance activities 
for the entire waterfront. Annual maintenance costs are 
estimated to be $30,000. According to Mr. Tom, funding for 
such maintenance will be provided by revenues from the 1/2 
cent Transportation Sales Tax. These maintenance costs are 
included in a twenty-year budget projection for the use of local 
transportation sales tax revenues by DPW. 



BOARD OF SUPERVLSORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



37 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 9, 1992 

Reco mmendat ion: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

38 



Attachment 




Memo to Finance Committee 
December 9, 1992 

Item li - File 148-91-8.2 



Department 
Item: 

Amount: 
Source of Funds: 

Project 
Description: 



Department of Public Works (DPW) 

Release of reserved funds for consultant services for planning 
and environmental work for the Embarcadero Freeway 
Replacement Project. 

$325,375 

Federal Highway Administration Emergency Relief Funds 
and State Highway Funds 

Embarcadero Replacement Project 

On June 12, 1991, the Board of Supervisors authorized the 
Director of Public Works to apply for $58.5 million in Federal 
Highway Administration Emergency Relief Funds for the 
planning, design and construction of a subsurface alternative 
to the Embarcadero Freeway, and to accept and expend 
$4,593,600 of said funds for planning and environmental work 
for the project. In addition, the Board reserved $1,674,600 of the 
$4,593,600 for various contractual services related to the 
planning and environmental work, pending provision of 
contractual details, hourly rates and the MBE/WBE/LBE status 
of the contractors (File 148-91-8). 

On June 12, 1991, the Board of Supervisors authorized the 
Director of Public Works to apply for $11.0 million in State 
Highway Funds for the planning, design and construction of a 
subsurface alternative to the Embarcadero Freeway, and to 
accept and expend $756,400 of said funds for planning and 
environmental work for the project. In addition, the Board 
reserved $275,400 of the $756,400 for various contractual 
services related to the planning and environmental work, 
pending provision of contractual hours, hourly rates and the 
MBE/WBE status of the contractors (File 148-91-9). 

Therefore, the total amount of funds on reserve for planning 
and environmental work for the Embarcadero Freeway 
Replacement Project is $1,950,000 ($1,674,600 plus $275,400). 

On June 10, 1992 the Finance Committee released $1,624,625 
from a total requested release of $1,950,000 and continued to 
reserve the remaining $325,375 as recommended by the Budget 
Analyst. DPW identified a total of $1,476,932 for contractual 
services of which $590,998 or approximately 40 percent of these 
costs for such services to be performed by Disadvantaged 
Business Enterprise (DBE) including Minority and Women 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



40 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 9, 1992 



Business Enterprise (MBE/WBE) firms. Adding a 10 percent 
contingency increased this total amount by $147,693 from 
$1,476,932 to $1,624,625. Thus the difference between the 
requested $1,950,000 release of funds and the actual $1,624,625 
release is $325,375, which is the subject of this item. 

DPW has identified an amendment to its existing Embarcadero 
Replacement Project totaling $580,815 as follows: 

Release of Funds (this item) $325,375 

Reprogramming of existing planning funds 255.440 

Total Plan Amendment $580,815 

The proposed cost changes by task and by consulting firm 
would be as follows: 



Description 



Amount 



Comments: 



Initiation of Environmental Documentation 


$ 2,855 


Environmental Studies and Reports 


311,183 


Draft EIS/Em 


30,858 


Public Hearing 


1,233 


Responses to Comments, Final EIS/EIR 


24,031 


Meetings 


17,242 


Project Management 


4,149 


Engineering Services 


135,629 


Fee 


53.635 


Total 


$580,815 


Consulting Firms 


Amount 


Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade, & Douglas 


$119,273 


Douglas Wright Consulting 


9,179 


Aileen C. Hernandez Associates (MBE/WBE) 


3,146 


Public Affairs Management (WBE) 


6,273 


Finger & Moy (MBE) 


11,955 


Baseline Environmental Consulting (WBE) 


23,500 


Jonas & Associates (WBE) 


7,562 


E. M. Rose & Associates (MBE) 


9,519 


Harding Lawson Associates 


9,735 


Wilson, Ihrig & Associates 


7,229 


Korve Engineering 


259,229 


Chaudhary & Associates (MBE) 


114515 


Total Consultants 


$580,815 



1. Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade & Douglas (PBQ&D) as the 
prime contractor indicates that the contractors involved in this 
project will devote a total of 16,808 hours to the project and that 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



41 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 9, 1992 



the hourly rates charged by the contractors range from $12.00 
to $61.25. 

2. The estimated budget for the Planning Phase 
(Environmental and Preliminary Engineering) for the 
Embarcadero Freeway Replacement Project is as follows: 

City Departments Amount 

Department of Public Works (DPW) $2,900,000 

Department of Parking and Traffic 250,000 

Department of Planning 220,000 

City Attorney 5,000 

Real Estate Department 35,000 
(DPW) Bureau of Environmental Regulation and 

Management 40.000 

Subtotal $3,450,000 

Consultant Costs $1,833,039 

Total $5,283,039 

3. Ms. Sara Pickus, Project Manager at the DPW advises that 
the additional $580,815 in consultant costs would amend and 
increase the total request for consultant services from 
$1,252,224 to $1,833,039, as follows: 

Consulting Firms Amount 

Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade, & Douglas $630,294 

Douglas Wright Consulting 89,595 

Aileen C. Hernandez Associates (MBE/WBE) 46,692 

Public Affairs Management (WBE) 138,284 

Finger & Moy (MBE) 99,761 

Baseline Environmental Consulting (WBE) 150,361 

Jonas & Associates (WBE) 63,848 

E. M. Rose & Associates (MBE) 54,367 

Harding Lawson Associates 64,585 

Wilson, Birig & Associates 61,405 

Korve Engineering 319,632 

Chaudhary & Associates (MBE) 114.215 

Total Consultants $1,833,039 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



hi 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 9, 1992 



4. Ms. Pickus reports that the requested funds are needed to do 
the environmental impact report (EIR) portion of the 
Embarcadero Freeway project, irrespective of whether the City 
decides to build a subsurface or surface road. Ms. Pickus 
advises that the EIR work must be done before construction 
work can begin. 



Recommendation; Release the reserve. 



BOARD OF S UPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

43 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 9, 1992 

Items 2. 3. 4. fi and 6 ■ Files 65-92-15. 65-92-16. 65-92-17. 65-92-18 and 65-92-19 

Refer to the separate Budget Analyst's report of December 7, 1992 regarding 
the proposed amendments to Candlestick Park Lease and Amendments to Related 
Agreements with the San Francisco Giants. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

44 



.Memo to Finance Committee 
December 9, 1992 

Item 7 -File 118-92-9 

Note: This item was transferred to the Finance Committee at the 
November 17, 1992 City Services Committee meeting because of its 
fiscal impact. 

Item: Ordinance amending Part II, Chapter C of the San 

Francisco Municipal Code (Health Code) by adding Article 
26 thereto, encompassing sections 1601 through 1633 to 
establish a comprehensive lead hazard reduction program. 

Description: The proposed ordinance would amend the Health Code to 

include provisions intended to reduce the exposure to lead 
among children and other residents of San Francisco. 
Exposure to lead represents a health hazard which is 
especially dangerous to children, since it can damage the 
central nervous system, result in reduced concentration and 
attentiveness, create permanent learning disabilities and 
otherwise interfere with healthy development. 

A significant source of lead exposure is lead-based paint, 
which was manufactured until 1977 and used extensively in 
buildings constructed prior to that time. DPH reports that 
80 to 85 percent of San Francisco's housing stock was 
constructed before 1980, and 70 to 75 percent was 
constructed before the 1950's, at a time when paint 
contained a very high concentration of lead. 

The proposed ordinance would establish a comprehensive 
program to educate City residents and adults who work 
with children to the hazards of lead exposure, and to 
establish investigative, abatement, and case management 
procedures to reduce the City's lead hazards and to enhance 
access by San Francisco residents to appropriate medical 
services. 

The proposed ordinance provides for the following 
components of the Comprehensive Lead Poisoning 
Prevention Program: 

Citv Agency Task Force (Section 1606) : The Director of 
Public Health would convene and co-ordinate a City Agency 
Task Force to exchange information and co-ordinate inter- 
departmental lead abatement activities. The Task Force 
would include representatives of the Department of Public 
Health, Department of Public Works, Department of City 
Planning, Department of Social Services, the Recreation 
and Park Department, the Public Library, the Public 
Utilities Commission, the Mayor's Office, and the Chief 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



45 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 9, 1992 



Administrative Officer. The Director of Public Health 
would request the participation of the Redevelopment 
Agency, the Housing Authority, San Francisco Unified 
School District, and any other agencies with relevant 
expertise. 

Except for its provisions regarding the departments to be 
represented, as stated above, the proposed ordinance does 
not specify the number of Task Force members. 

Lead Poisoning Prevention Citizens Adv isory Committee 
(Section 1607) : This Committee (a separate body from the 
City Agency Task Force) would review implementation of 
the proposed ordinance and recommend appropriate policies 
and activities for medical screening and primary lead 
poisoning prevention activities. The 30 members of the 
committee would be appointed by the Board of Supervisors 
according to guidelines of the proposed ordinance. The 
Committee would include representatives of the 
Department of Social Services, Department of Public 
Health, the Mayor's Office of Housing and Child Care, the 
Recreation and Park Department, and the San Francisco 
Unified School District. 

Lead Hazard Reduction Citizens Advisory Committee 
(Section 1608) : This committee (a third separate body under 
the proposed ordinance) would prepare an annual report to 
the Board of Supervisors regarding policies and procedures 
for a lead hazard reduction program for residential 
buildings. Within six months the committee would be 
required to submit draft legislation to amend the 
Residential Rent Stabilization Ordinance to regulate the 
assignment to tenants of any costs associated with lead 
hazard reduction measures. The Committee would consist 
of 16 members appointed by the Board of Supervisors, 
including 3 representatives from City departments. 

Citv Support for Task Force a n d Committees : According to 
the proposed ordinance, the Director of Public Health would 
be required to provide clerical assistance to the City Agency 
Task Force and the Lead Poisoning Prevention and Lead 
Hazard Reduction Citizen Advisory Committees described 
above. Under the proposed ordinance, members of the Lead 
Poisoning Prevention and the Lead Hazard Reduction 
Citizen Advisory Committees would serve without 
compensation or reimbursement for expenses. 

Annual Renort bv Dire ctor of Public Health (Section 1609) : 
The Director of Public Health would be required to submit 
an annual report describing the current efforts of all City 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 9, 1992 



agencies pursuant to the proposed ordinance and to assess 
the effectiveness of the lead poisoning prevention program. 
The annual report would include recommendations for 
additional legislation to improve the program and a survey 
of similar State and local efforts. 

Information Bulletin ( Section 1610) : The Director of Public 
Health would be required to prepare a bulletin to address 
lead poisoning hazards, screening and testing activities, 
procedures for abatement of hazards, sources of further 
information and assistance, and the requirements of the 
proposed ordinance. 

Information and Outreach (Section 1611): The Information 
Bulletin would be provided by the Director of Public Health 
to the following individuals or agencies: physicians in San 
Francisco's Child Health and Disability Prevention 
Program (CHDP), the San Francisco Unified School 
District, the Department of Social Services, the Head Start 
program, City health care facilities, private physicians, the 
Mayor's Office of Children, Youth, and Their Families, the 
City's licensed child care facilities, and persons seeking to 
obtain a certified birth certificate of a child under 6 years of 
age. 

The Director of Public Health would issue a directive to the 
Public Library, Department of Social Services, the 
Recreation and Park Department, and other appropriate 
agencies, directing them to provide information concerning 
lead poisoning prevention programs to children and parents 
participating in City programs. 

Use of Appropriate Languages (Section 1612) : City 
departments providing information and outreach services 
pursuant to the proposed ordinance would provide these 
services in "a language appropriate to the target audience." 

Educational Training (Section 1613) : Operators of child care 
facilities funded with City revenue would be required to 
participate in an educational training program concerning 
lead hazards and lead poisoning prevention activities. 

Building and Demol ition Permits (Section 1614): The 
Bureau of Building Inspection would be required to provide 
information concerning health risks of lead exposure to any 
persons applying for a building or demolition permit. 

Information Included in Tax Bills (Section 1615) : The Tax 
Collector would be required to include the Information 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

47 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 9, 1992 



Bulletin prepared by the Director of Public Health in county 
property tax bills. 

Case Manag ement Services (Section 1617): The Director of 
Public Health would implement a program to track and 
follow-up each case of childhood lead poisoning, including 
lead hazard assessment of the child's dwelling unit. 

Enrollmen t in Child Health and Disability Program 
(Section 1618) : The Director of Pubhc Health would develop 
an outreach program to inform parents or guardians of 
eligibility requirements of the CHDP program. 

Temporary Safe Housing (Section 1619): The Director of 
Public Health would develop a program to provide 
temporary safe housing, as needed for children and families 
exposed to lead hazards, who cannot make such 
arrangements themselves. 

Data Management (Section 1620): The Director of Public 
Health would be required to collect and analyze information 
regarding cases of childhood lead poisoning and primary 
prevention and screening activities. 

Blood Teat Reporting bv Medical Doctors and Laboratories 
(Section 1621) : Every physician and clinical laboratory 
would be required to report the results of all blood tests to 
the Department of Public Health. The reports would 
include any demographic information required on forms 
prepared for that purpose by DPH. 

Lead Poisoning Test Results (Section 1622) : The Director of 
Public Health would be required to report every 6 months 
on the results of all lead tests performed by DPH for San 
Francisco residents, including demographic statistics. 

Departments to Identify Lead Contaminated Sites (Section 
1623) : Within 90 days of the effective date of the proposed 
ordinance, the Director of Public Health would issue 
guidelines regarding the characteristics of City-owned 
property which could present lead hazards. Every City 
department with jurisdiction over a building meeting the 
criteria defined by DPH would undertake an assessment 
program in accordance with the guidelines, and report the 
results to the Director of Public Health. The Director of 
Public Health would be authorized to take any appropriate 
actions to provide public notice of the conditions of pubhc 
buildings and abate any lead hazards found to exist. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 9, 1992 

Selection o f High Priority Areas (Section 1624) : The 
Director of Public Health would develop a program to 
identify geographical areas of the City with particular high 
risk of lead contamination. These areas would receive 
priority in the City's efforts to reduce exposure to lead. 
Selection criteria to be considered would include previous 
cases of lead poisoning, the age and condition of buildings, 
inspection results, income levels, and the presence of known 
sources of lead. 

Hazardous Non-Houa ing Sites (Section 1625) : The Director 
of Public Health would develop a program to identify all 
non-housing sites within the City which are likely to expose 
children to lead hazards, to be designated lead hazard 
sites," and would provide public notice of these sites to the 
community in which the site is located. 

Inspection and Testing of Dwelling Units (Section 1626): 
Inspection of dwelling units would be performed by DPH 
whenever a case of childhood lead poisoning is reported at a 
level of 20 micrograms of lead per deciliter of whole blood, 
or at a lower level as determined by the Director. The 
inspections would include laboratory testing of paint, soil, 
or other potentially contaminated samples taken from the 
dwelling. The Director of Public Health would recommend 
abatement measures. At high concentrations (as defined), 
the owner of the building would be required to notify all 
occupants of the building of the test results. 

Incentive Programs (Section 1627) : The Mayor's Office 
would develop proposed programs for grants, loans, or other 
policies which would provide incentives to reduce lead 
hazards and prevent childhood lead poisoning. The Mayor 
would be required to submit recommendations to the Board 
of Supervisors within one year. 

Comprehensive Environmental Lead Poisoning Fund 
(Section 1628) : The Controller would establish a fund for 
deposit of all monies obtained from civil penalties imposed 
under the proposed ordinance and, to the extent allowed, all 
monies recovered from enforcement of laws related to lead 
contamination. 

The Director of Public Health would also be authorized to 
accept any donations or gifts made to the City to support 
the program, which upon acceptance would be deposited to 
the Fund. 

Penalties and Enforcement (Sectio n 1629): The Director of 
Public Health would be authorized to require the correction 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

49 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 9, 1992 



Comments: 



of any violations of any section of the proposed ordinance 
within a reasonable period of time. If the violation is not 
corrected, DPH may request the City Attorney to seek an 
injunction and to recover civil penalties. 

Any individual violating or failing to comply with the 
proposed ordinance would be liable for a civil penalty, not to 
exceed $500 for each day such a violation is committed or 
permitted to continue. 

Any person violating or refusing to comply with the 
proposed ordinance would be guilty of an infraction, and 
would be deemed guilty of a separate offense for each day 
the violation or refusal to comply continues. Each violation 
would be punishable by a fine not exceeding $100 for a first 
offense; a fine not exceeding $200 for a second violation 
within a year; and a fine not exceeding $500 for each 
additional violation within a year. 

Any person who violates the provisions of the proposed 
ordinance, after having been convicted of three or more 
violations within the preceding 12-month period, could be 
charged with a misdemeanor. 

1. The City currently relies on the following primary 
resources for lead poisoning prevention activities: 

DPH Bureau of Toxics and Safety Services 
Three new positions were added to the 1992-93 annual 
budget of the Bureau of Toxics and Safety Services at DPH 
for activities related to lead hazards. A Public Health 
Nurse was added to conduct home visits in cases of lead 
poisoning, an Industrial Hygienist was added to test for the 
presence of lead at potentially hazardous sites, and a 
Health Educator was added to conduct additional education 
and outreach concerning lead hazards. The 1992-93 budget 
for the Bureau of Toxics and Safety Services includes a total 
of $219,577 for the salary and fringe benefit costs of the 
three new employees. 

DPH Bureau of Epidemiology and Disease Control 
DPH has been awarded a grant of $125,547 for fiscal year 
1992-93 from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control to 
provide enhanced outreach and education to residents of 
the Mission District, where the risk of lead exposure is 
greater than in other parts of the City. The grant program 
is currently being implemented and staff has not yet been 
hired. However, DPH estimates that the staff will consist 
of 2 Community Health Workers, 1 Secretary, and a 0.5 
FTE Data Manager, at an annual cost of $104,142. These 

BOARD O F SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 9, 1992 



staff members will be hired by the California Public Health 
Foundation, which administers the grant program, and 
assigned to DPH, and will not be Civil Service employees. 

Childhood Health and Disease Prevention Prop-am (C.HDP^ 
This program administers grant funds to reimburse 
physicians for the cost of medical care provided to low- 
income children. According to Ms. Mildred Crear of DPH, 
CHDP reimbursements are not capped and are available to 
all enrolled physicians who provide medical care to children 
who qualify on the basis of income. Under the proposed 
ordinance, DPH would conduct further outreach to increase 
the number of physicians enrolled in the program, and to 
publicize the availability of these services to low-income 
families. 

2. Dr. Alvaro Garza of the Bureau of Epidemiology and 
Disease Control at DPH reports that DPH could implement 
the Comprehensive Lead Poisoning Prevention Program 
using existing personnel, with the possible addition of one 
new Health Programs Coordinator. 

Existing personnel consist of the staff assigned to lead 
prevention and abatement activities of the DPH Bureau of 
Toxics arid Safety Services (BTSS), and staff funded by a 
grant from the Centers for Disease Control for a lead 
poisoning prevention program in the Mission District (see 
Comment 1). 

The Budget Analyst estimates that the addition of one 
Health Programs Coordinator II would entail annual 
expenditures for salary and fringe benefits of approximately 
$66,751, at the maximum salary amount. Since this 
position is not included in the approved budget for 1992-93, 
the Budget Analyst notes that the addition of such a 
position to DPH staff would require a supplemental 
appropriation. However, Dr. Garza reports that the position 
could be funded with new tax revenues expected to be 
available from the State later in 1992-93 (see Comment 7). 

3. According to Dr. Garza, the proposed ordinance would 
primarily require DPH to perform additional education and 
outreach activities. The major cost of these activities will 
be production and dissemination of the DPH Information 
Bulletin, and training of child care providers. 

Section 1611 of the proposed ordinance requires the DPH 
Information Bulletin to be widely distributed. However, 
the number of bulletins which would be required, and the 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



a 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 9, 1992 



cost of producing and distributing them, is not known at 
this time. DPH reports that, according to the 1990 census, 
there are approximately 42,000 children between the ages 
of and 5 residing in San Francisco, whose parents, 
teachers, physicians, child-care providers, and other service 
providers would all be targeted to receive the bulletin. Ms. 
Sue Cone of BTSS notes that if one bulletin were produced 
for each child under the age of five in San Francisco, at an 
estimated cost of $0.10 per bulletin, the total cost of the 
bulletins would be $4,200, although this cost would increase 
if more bulletins were needed or the cost to produce them 
exceeded $0.10 per bulletin. 

The Budget Analyst notes that training for child care 
providers, as required under Section 1613, could be 
provided through workshops which are currently being 
developed by the 3 new lead prevention employees at BTSS. 

4. Dr. Garza reports that if the number of reported cases of 
childhood lead poisoning increases significantly due to the 
increased education and outreach activities of the proposed 
ordinance, DPH may require the addition of a new 
Industrial Hygienist to perform additional residential 
inspections. The Budget Analyst notes that the maximum 
annual salary and fringe benefit cost for a Senior Industrial 
Hygienist in 1992-93 is $95,795. Dr. Garza reports that 
this position, if it were needed, could also be paid from 
approximately $150,000 which Dr. Garza expects to be 
allocated in 1992-93 under new State legislation (see 
Comment 7). 

However, Ms. Cone reports that BTSS is currently 
investigating cases of childhood lead poisoning using the 
three positions added in 1992-93 for the BTSS lead 
prevention program, which include one Senior Industrial 
Hygienist. Ms. Cone states that BTSS investigates 
childhood lead poisoning in accordance with guidelines 
issued by the Centers of Disease Control for lead poisoning 
prevention and abatement procedures. BTSS conducts a 
home visit by a Public Health Nurse in cases where a child 
is found to have blood lead levels of at least 15 micrograms 
per deci-liter, and evaluation by an Industrial Hygienist, 
including laboratory testing of paint, soil, and other 
samples, in cases where the child's blood lead level is at 
least 20 micrograms per deci-liter. 

Ms. Cone reports that BTSS identifies approximately 77 
cases annually of children whose blood lead levels exceed 15 
micrograms, and 24 cases annually of children with blood 
levels of at least 20 micrograms. If these numbers were to 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 9, 1992 






increase as the result of additional education and outreach, 
the need for additional BTSS staff for home visits, 
assessment, and staffing could be re-evaluated. 

5. Ms. Cone reports that testing of a single residence entails 
laboratory tests costing from $500 to $800, but that these 
costs are currently paid by the State. If these costs are 
transferred to San Francisco by the State, increased 
inspection and testing of residential buildings could entail 
significantly higher costs to the City for clinical laboratory 
services. 

6. Section 1623 of the proposed ordinance would involve the 
evaluation of City-owned property for lead hazards, using 
guidelines established by DPH. The cost of these 
assessments, and of any abatement work recommended by 
the Director of Public Health, cannot be determined at this 
time. . 

7. Dr. Garza reports that the State has recently enacted a 
comprehensive lead poisoning prevention program, which 
imposes new taxes on industries which generate materials 
containing lead. Dr. Garza states that approximately 
$150,000 is expected to be available to the City during 
1992-93 under the new State legislation. However, the 
final amount of the expected allocation is still unknown at 
this time. Dr. Garza reports that the anticipated State 
funds could be used to fund a Health Programs Coordinator 
and a Senior Industrial Hygienist if these additional 
positions were needed to implement the Comprehensive 
Lead Poisoning Prevention Program. The total annual cost 
of these positions, at the maximum salary level, would be 
$162,546. If the positions were funded for only six months 
during 1992-93, the cost would be $81,273 at the maximum 
salary level. 

8. The Budget Analyst notes that the Mayor's proposed 
budget for the 1993 Community Development Block Grant 
Program includes a $500,000 proposed allocation for a Lead 
Hazard Prevention Program Pool. According to the Mayor's 
Office, this program pool would fund lead hazard 
assessment and abatement activities at child-care facilities 
that have received CDBG funds. 

9. Although the Director of Public Health is authorized 
under the proposed ordinance to recommend abatement 
activities where lead hazards are identified, building 
owners and other responsible parties would not be required 
under the proposed ordinance to correct the identified 
hazards. Ms. Cone reports that DPH does not require such 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



53 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 9, 1992 



Recommendation: 



measures because there is a shortage of qualified 
contractors in the City who can perform lead hazard 
abatement activities. Ms. Cone states that some 
contractors will attend workshops developed by BTSS 
concerning lead hazard abatement techniques, and will 
then be eligible to receive State certification as qualified 
contractors for lead abatement services. 

10. Under the proposed ordinance, the only corrective 
measure which would be required of private property 
owners would be that they notify tenants of lead hazards, 
after inspection by DPH, if lead concentrations are found at 
a very high level. However, under the proposed ordinance, 
DPH would conduct tests only in response to identified 
cases of childhood lead poisoning in excess of 20 
micrograms. As noted previously, DPH estimates that 
there are approximately 24 such cases on an average 
annual basis. 

11. This item was approved by the City Services Committee 
on November 17, 1992 and transferred to the Finance 
Committee because of its fiscal impact, in that it requires 
an expenditure of funds for new activities by City agencies. 
The total 1992-93 cost of existing General Fund and grant- 
funded personnel who would be used for this program is 
$323,719 (see Comment 1). In addition, if a new Health 
Programs Coordinator and an additional Senior Industrial 
Hygienist were needed, these positions would impose 
additional annual salary costs of approximately $162,546, 
or $81,273 for a six month period. The cost of information 
bulletins required to be produced under the proposed 
ordinance is estimated at $4,200, but the actual cost will 
depend on the number of bulletins and the actual costs of 
production. DPH reports that an additional $150,000 for 
this program may be allocated by the State during 1992-93. 

Approval of the proposed ordinance is a policy matter for 
the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



54 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 9, 1992 

Items 8 and 9 - Files 101-92-15 and 102-92-7 



Department: 
Items: 



Amount: 
Source of Funds: 

Description: 
Comment: 



Department of Public Health 

These items are hearings to consider: 

(File 101-92-15) A supplemental appropriation ordinance 
to fund a new Medical Waste Generator Program. 

(File 102-92-7) An ordinance to amend the Annual Salary 
Ordinance to create two new positions for the Medical 
Waste Generator Program. 

$93,097 

New revenues generated by implementing Medical Waste 
Generator fees. 

As of the writing of this report the legislation for these items 
has not been finalized. Therefore, the Budget Analyst cannot 
report on these items until the legislation becomes available. 

The Budget Analyst's previous report for the November 18, 
1992 Finance Committee Meeting, regarding an ordinance 
(File 118-92-8) to amend the San Francisco Health Code to 
provide for the Medical Waste Generator Program is 
attached. This ordinance was amended by the Finance 
Committee to 1) require that the program would be fully 
supported by fee revenues only (no General Fund monies 
would be used to support the program) and 2) require the 
program to be evaluated at the end of 18 months of operations, 
and the program would be terminated at the end of two years, 
if program revenue projections for the third and subsequent 
years do not equal projected expenditures for the program. 
This ordinance is being considered by the Board of 
Supervisors on December 7, 1992. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



55 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 18, 1992 



Attachment ^ 
Page 1 ot>9 i 



Item 7 - File 118-92-8 

Department: 

Item: 



Department of Public Health (DPH) 

The proposed ordinance would amend the Health Code by 
adding Article 25, Sections 1401 through 1413 to provide for a 
program for enforcement of the California Medical Waste 
Management Act and for registration, permitting, 
inspections and administrative fees for medical waste 
generators, treatment, and storage faculties. 

Description: The proposed Medical Waste Generator Registration, 

Permitting, Inspection and Fee Ordinance (Medical Waste 
Ordinance) would regulate the storage, treatment, 
transportation, and disposal of medical waste within the 
City. The proposed ordinance would enable the City's DPH to 
regulate private and public medical waste generator agencies 
located in the City and County of San Francisco. 

The proposed ordinance contains a two page technical 
definition of "medical waste." Generally, "medical waste" is 
the discarded superfluous material from medical or 
veterinary agencies that may contain infectious disease 
organisms and, therefore, is a health threat to humans and 
animals. Used hypodermic needles, blood vials, bandages, 
and medical instruments are examples of medical waste. 

The ordinance would regulate the management of medical 
waste generated by various medical facilities including: 
hospitals, clinics, surgery centers, doctor's offices, veterinary 
offices, health care facilities, medical laboratories, and 
dental offices. Agencies having facilities that produce 
medical waste would be required to send to the DPH an 
informational document which includes general business 
information and information on the types and volumes of 
medical waste produced, medical waste handling, storage, 
treatment and disposal methods. The ordinance would 
require that medical waste could only be transported by State 
licensed hazardous waste haulers or certain medical waste 
generator agencies with limited hauling exemptions issued 
by the DPH. 

Agencies having facilities that treat medical waste generated 
on site would also be required to comply with specified 
provisions in the ordinance. Medical waste treatment is any 
method designed to destroy the biological hazard of medical 
waste so as to eliminate its potential for causing disease. The 
ordinance additionally would regulate the storage and 
transfer of medical waste by requiring permits for the 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



SA 



Attachment 
Memo to Finance Committee Page Z or ^ . 

November 18, 1992 

consolidation and use of common storage areas by a group of 
generators. 

The proposed ordinance contains specific regulations for 
large and small quantity generator agencies and fees that 
would be paid to the City (estimated revenues are detailed in 
Comment number 4 below) as follows: 

Large quantity generators agencies would be those agencies 
having facilities that generate more than 200 pounds of 
medical waste each month. (The proposed ordinance defines 
the constituents of "medical waste.") The proposed ordinance 
requires that large quantity generator agencies register with 
the DPH annually. In addition, the generator agency would 
be required to submit a Medical Waste Management Plan 
that includes general business information as well as 
information on the types and volumes of medical waste 
generated, medical waste handling, storage, treatment and 
disposal methods. 

This group of generator agencies would be subject to 
inspection on an annual basis by the City to ensure 
compliance with State and City requirements. Mr. Scott 
Nakamura, the Hazardous Waste Project Manager for the 
DPH Bureau of Toxics, Health and Safety Services, estimates 
that there are 177 agencies in San Francisco that would fit 
the large quantity medical waste generator definition of the 
proposed ordinance. This large quantity medical waste 
generator group includes 83 agencies that currently have 
State medical waste licensed facilities and 94 licensed 
laboratories, veterinary offices, and medical offices. The 
proposed ordinance would require the payment of annual 
registration fees to the City by large quantity generators 
agencies. These annual registration fees would range from 
$255 to $1,445 according to the size and type of facility. 

The proposed ordinance would require that Onsite Medical 
Waste Treatment Facility Permits be obtained from the DPH 
by large quantity generator agencies that want to treat and 
dispose of their own medical wastes. Large quantity medical 
waste generator agencies that want to treat their own 
medical wastes would be required to use approved methods 
which include the use of an autoclave, microwave, or 
incinerator. In addition, a health care facility accepting 
medical waste for treatment from small quantity generators 
located within 400 yards could do so as an onsite treatment 
facility. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



57 



Attachment 
Memo to Finance Committee Page 3 ot 5 

November 18, 1992 

Large quantity medical waste generator agencies wanting to 
obtain an onsite treatment permit would be required to 
submit an application containing business information, 
treatment method, facility treatment capacity, waste 
characterization, and estimated average monthly quantity of 
waste to be treated at the facility. Mr. Nakamura estimates 
that there are 21 agencies in the City that currently treat 
medical waste onsite. The annual permit fee for an onsite 
autoclave permit would be $255 and the annual permit fee for 
all other State Approved treatment methods would be $340. In 
addition, the Director of DPH would charge large quantity 
medical waste generator agencies wanting to obtain an onsite 
treatment permit a permit application fee equal to $85 for 
each hour that DPH staff spends processing the permit 
application. 

Small Quantity Generators would be those agencies having 
facilities that generate less than 200 pounds of medical waste 
each month. The proposed ordinance would regulate two 
subgroups of small quantity generator agencies. The two 
groups would include small quantity generator agencies that 
treat medical waste onsite and small quantity generators that 
do not treat medical waste onsite. 

Small quantity generators that treat medical waste onsite 
would be required to register, file a medical waste 
management plan, and submit applicable fees to the DPH on 
a biennial basis. The approved treatment methods for onsite 
medical waste treatment would include the use of steam 
sterilization, incineration, and microwave methods. The 
management plan would be required to describe the method 
to be used to treat, transport, and dispose of the medical 
waste. In addition, this group of generator agencies would be 
subject to inspection by the City on a biennial basis to ensure 
compliance with State and City requirements. Small quantity 
generators that treat medical waste onsite would be required 
to pay a registration fee of $255 every two years. Mr. 
Nakamura estimates that there are 15 agencies in the City 
that currently are small quantity generator agencies that 
treat medical waste onsite. 

Small quantity generators that do not treat medical waste 
onsite are required by the ordinance to submit to the DPH an 
informational document that describes how the medical 
waste is handled, stored, transported, and disposed. In 
addition, the ordinance requires that small quantity 
generator agencies pay a one time non-registrant fee of $75. 
Mr. Nakamura estimates that there are 1,600 small quantity 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



sa 



Attachment 
Memo to Finance Committee Page 4 of 9 '" 

November 18, 1992 

generator agencies that would be required to submit the 
informational document and one time fee. 

Limited Quantity Hauling Exemptions would be required to 
be obtained from the DPH which would enable small quantity 
generator agencies to transport up to 20 pounds of medical 
waste per week. The medical waste would be required to be 
transported to a licensed medical waste treatment facility or 
transfer station before consolidation or treatment and 
disposal. Small quantity generator agencies applying for a 
Limited Quantity Hauling Exemption would be required to 
pay an annual fee of $85. Mr. Nakamura estimates that there 
are 50 small quantity generator agencies that would request 
Limited Quantity Hauling Exemptions. Agencies that haul 20 
pounds of medical waste per week or more would continue to 
be licensed and regulated by the State. 

Common Storage Facility permits would be obtained from the 
DPH for small quantity generator agencies that want to store 
medical waste until it is picked up by a licensed hauler. The 
permit could be issued to the group of small quantity 
generator agencies, the property owner or management 
firm, or medical waste hauler. The fee for a Common Storage 
Facility permit would range from $213 to $425 depending on 
the number of generator agencies served by the storage 
facility. Mr. Nakamura estimates that there are 21 groups of 
small quantity generators agencies that would use common 
storage facilities. 

The proposed ordinance would authorize the Director of the 
DPH to enforce the provisions of the California Medical Waste 
Management Act of 1990. Violations of the Act and ordinance 
would be subject to Cease and Desist Orders and 
Administrative penalties of up to $1,000 per violation. 
Violations of an Order would constitute a misdemeanor and 
could be subject to civil action. Violations of storage, 
treatment, and disposal standards would vary from small 
quantity and large quantity generators. Generators violating 
these standards are subject to penalties ranging from $1,000 
for the first offense to no more than $25,000 and/or three years 
imprisonment for multiple offenses. The Director of the DPH 
would also be authorized to take emergency actions when 
necessary to protect the public health or welfare. The Director 
of the DPH could also assess liens for costs and charges 
incurred by the City for the abatement of any imminent 
danger. 

The proposed ordinance authorizes the City's Director of the 
DPH to enforce the provisions of the California Medical Waste 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

59 



Attachment 
Page iot 9 

Memo to Finance Committee 

November 18, 1992 

Management Act of 1990. Violations of the Act and ordinance 
would be subject to Cease and Desist Orders and 
Administrative penalties of up to $1,000 per violation. 
Violations of an Order would constitute a misdemeanor and 
would be subject to a civil action. 

Violations of storage, treatment, and disposal standards 
would vary for small quantity and large quantity medical 
waste generator agencies. Medical waste generator agencies 
violating these standards would be subject to penalties 
ranging from $1,000 for the first offense to no more than 
$25,000 and/or three years imprisonment for multiple 
offenses. The Director of the DPH would also be authorized to 
take emergency actions when necessary to protect the public 
health or welfare. The Director of the DPH could also assess 
liens for costs and charges incurred by the City for the 
abatement of any imminent hazardous waste danger. 

Comments: 1. The State currently regulates the storage, treatment, 

transportation, and disposal of medical waste within the City 
and regulates private and public medical waste generator 
agencies located in the City and County of San Francisco. The 
DPH intends that the proposed ordinance would give the DPH 
control over medical waste in the City to better assure that the 
biological character of medical waste can either be isolated or 
eliminated so as to prevent medical waste from causing 
disease in humans or animals. The DPH believes that it can 
do a better job to assure the safety of medical waste in the City 
than can the State. 

2. The California Medical Waste Management Act of 1990 
authorizes local agencies, such as the City, to establish a 
medical waste regulatory program through the adoption of a 
local medical waste management ordinance. According to 
Mr. Scott Nakamura, the Hazardous Waste Project Manager 
for the DPH Bureau of Toxics, Health and Safety Services, the 
State Department of Health Services currently administers 
the regulations contained in this act and, thereby, currently 
is responsible for regulating private and public facilities 
located in the City that create, produce, or generate medical 
wastes. Mr. Nakamura states that the State Department of 
Health Services is not adequately staffed to respond to the 
City's local concerns. 

3. According to Mr. Nakamura, "the benefits of local 
implementation of the Medical Waste Management Program 
include local control over the identification and correction of 
problems related to the improper management of medical 
waste, faster response to incidents of improperly managed 

BOARD OF ST JPKRVTSOPS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 18, 1992 



Attachment 
Page 6 of 9 



medical waste, the ability to address occupational safety and 
health issues at medical facilities, increased communication 
with medical waste generators, and coordination of local 
policies which would minimize public health concerns. The 
implementation of such a local program would also ensure 
that registration and permit fees, which would otherwise be 
submitted to the State, would stay in San Francisco." 

4. The following table lists the one-time and annual fees that 
would be charged for each type of agency and activity: 



Number Frequency 
Number of of 



One Total 
Annual Time First Year 



TvDe of Aaencv 


of Beds Aoencies Payment 


fj£ | 


Revenue Revenue Revenue 


Larae Quantity Generator 












Hospital 


1to99 


3 


Annual 


$ 510 


$ 1,530 


Hospital 


100 to 

199 
200 to 

250 
251 plus 


1 


Annual 


765 


765 


Hospital 


1 


Annual 


1,020 


1,020 


Hospital 


12 


Annual 


1,445 


17,340 


Skilled Nursing Facility 


1to99 


14 


Annual 


255 


3,570 


Skilled Nursing Facility 


100 to 

199 

200 plus 


4 


Annual 


340 


1,360 


Skilled Nursing Facility 


1 


Annual 


425 


425 


Specialty Clinic 




31 


Annual 


595 


18,445 


Acute Psychiatric Hospital 




2 


Annual 


595 


1,190 


Intermediate Care Facility 




1 


Annual 


595 


595 


Primary Care Clinic 




12 


Annual 


595 


7,140 


Health Care Service Plan 




5 


Annual 


595 


2,975 


Licensed Clinical Laboratory 




38 


Annual 


255 


9,690 


Veterinary Offices 




6 


Annual 


255 


1,530 


Medical Office* 




46 


Annual 


255 


11,730* 


Small Quantity Generator 












On-Site Treatment 




15 


Biennial 


255 


1,913 


Off-Site Treatment 




1,600 


One-time 


75 


$120,000 


Haulers Limited Quantity Hauling 




50 


Annual 


85 


4,250 


Exemption 












Transfer Fee* 




1 






595* 


Common Storaae Facility Permits 












1 or less Agencies Served 




6 


Annual 


213 


1^78 


11 to 49 Agencies Served 




10 


Annual 


340 


3,400 


50 or more Agencies Served 




5 


Annual 


425 


2,125 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



61 



• 










Attachment^ 


Memo to Finance Committee 










Page / oi 


°^ . » 


November 18, 1992 
















Number 


Number 
of 


Frequency 
of 




One 
Annual Time 


Total 
First Year 


Type of Agency 

On-Site Medical Waste Treatment 

Facility 

Autoclave Treatment 


of Beds Agencies Payment 
20 Annual 


Ebb 

255 


Revenue Revenue 
5,100 


Revenue 


Other Treatment 




1 


Annual 


340 


340 




Processing Fee (estimate 30 
hours) 








$85/Hr. 


2,550 




Totals 


$100,856 $120,000 


$220,856 



* The proposed ordinance does not currently contain full provision for these fees. 
The DPH is working with the City Attorney's Office to amend the proposed 
ordinance to include mortuaries under the definition of medical offices and to 
make provision for a transfer fee of $595 annually. The transfer fee would be 
charged to haulers operating a transfer station at which medical wastes are 
consolidated and transferred to another hauler's vehicle. 

5. The California Medical Waste Management Act allows 
counties to charge fees necessary to implement a medical 
waste management program. A comparison of the proposed 
fees for the City and County of San Francisco, the State of 
California, and five other counties that have already 
implemented medical waste management programs is 
contained in the attached schedule. 



Personnel Costs 



6. Mr. Nakamura projects the annual costs for the 
implementation of the proposed Medical Waste Program to be 
$213,458. These implementation costs include personnel costs 
of $135,432 and non-personnel costs of $78,026 as follows: 



Classification 

6122 Senior Environmental Health Inspector 
1446 Secretary II 
Salary subtotal 

Mandatory Fringe Benefits (@ 28%) 

Total Personnel Costs 

Operating Costs 

Auto Mileage 

Travel 

Training 



FTE 
1.0 

m 

2.0 



Annual 
Salaries 
$ 66,240 
39.566 
$105,806 

29.626 



1,000 

500 

2,000 



$135,432 



BOARD OF S UPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



6? 



Attachment 

Memo to Finance Committee Page 8 ot 9 
November 18, 1992 

Contractual Services (Emergency Response) $22,000 

Other Current Services 2,000 

Vehicle 5,000 

Postage (3 mailings by registered mail) 17,500 

Telephone 1,500 

Materials and Supplies 6,000 

Rental of Property 5336 

Data Processing Equipment 7,500 

Reproduction 6,690 

Medical Surveillance 1.000 

Total Operating Costs 78.026 

Total Cost $213,458 



7. The Senior Environmental Health Inspector position would 
determine the inventory of businesses subject to the 
ordinance, develop letters of notification, application packets, 
fact sheets, standard operating procedures, inspection forms, 
enforcement procedures, fee collection procedures, review 
medical waste management plans and informational 
documents, and conduct inspections of facilities subject to the 
ordinance. In addition, this position would conduct business 
workshops for the regulated community to assist them in 
complying with the requirements of the ordinance. The 
Senior Clerk Typist would provide clerical support for the 
program. 

8. The above annual costs for the implementation of the 
proposed Medical Waste Program include the staffing and 
operating costs associated with the processing of 
applications, development of application forms, notifications 
of permit requirements, review of applications and required 
documentation, inspection of medical waste generators, 
issuance of permits, development and distribution of fact 
sheets, newsletters, and other educational materials. 

9. The costs to implement the program would be entirely 
funded by the projected revenue of $220,856 from registration 
and permit fees. The proposed ordinance provides for an 
inspection fee of $85 per hour or each portion thereof for 
inspections and associated activities. Prior to the issuance of 
permits, medical waste generator agencies may be inspected 
by DPH staff to ensure compliance with State and City 
requirements. 

10. According to Mr. Nakamura, after the initial year of 
operation of the proposed Medical Waste Program, various 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



63 



3&fc 



Memo to Finance Committee 
November 18, 1992 



Attachment 
Page y of 9 



Recommendation: 



initial costs of the Program could be eliminated or reduced. 
For example, vehicle, postage and data processing expenses 
could be reduced significantly. Mr. Nakamura estimates that 
the annual ongoing cost of the proposed Medical Waste 
Program would be approximately $30,000 less than the cost of 
the initial year of operation or $183,458. 

11. As stated above, the estimated revenues of $220,856 from 
the fees contained in the proposed ordinance would support 
the $213,458 estimated cost of the first year's operation of the 
proposed Medical Waste Program. However, the estimated 
revenues of $100,856 from the fees earned in the subsequent 
years of the Program would not support the $183,458 
estimated cost of the annual ongoing operation of the 
proposed Medical Waste Program. 

12. In order to hire the staff and expend funds to implement 
the proposed Medical Waste Program, DPH must submit a 
supplemental appropriation including the Controller's 
certification of funds available from the proposed new fees to 
appropriate the funds and an ordinance to amend the 
Annual Salary Ordinance to create the new positions. In 
addition, the collection of the proposed fees by the City would 
require the hiring of staff to perform the requisite 
inspections. The supplemental appropriation and the 
ordinance to amend the Annual Salary Ordinance should be 
companion legislation to this file since none could be 
appropriately implemented without the others. Mr. 
Nakamura has indicated to the Budget Analyst that he does 
have a plan to fund the ongoing cost of the proposed Program 
but has not finalized his plan. 

Continue the consideration of this item pending 1) the 
submission of a companion supplemental appropriation and 
an ordinance to amend the Annual Salary Ordinance, 2) the 
Department's clarification of second and subsequent years' 
funding, and 3) the revision of the proposed ordinance 
reflecting the specific intentions of the Department including 
fees for mortuaries and medical waste hauler transfer fees. 

The adoption of the proposed ordinance that would create an 
additional new program responsibility for the City including 
new fees and the need for additional staff and operational 
costs is a policy mater for the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF S UPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



6A 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 9, 1992 

Item 10 -File lfil-92-5.1 



Department 
Item: 

Description: 



Comments: 



Recommendations: 



San Francisco Redevelopment Agency (SFRA) 

Resolution approving an amendment to the Redevelopment 
Agency's FY 1992-93 budget. 

The proposed resolution would appropriate $30,000 from a 
recent bond transaction fee paid to the SFRA to fund a 
personal services contract with a consultant to provide 
bilingual technical services to nonprofit organizations and 
24th Street merchants as part of the 24th Street 
Revitalization Project. 

Mr. Bob Gamble of the SFRA reports that the SFRA recently 
received $81,000 from the Webster Tower and Terrace bond 
transaction. $51,000 represents fees past due and $30,000 
represents new fees. The proposed resolution would 
approve an amendment to the SFRA's budget to appropriate 
$30,000 of these revenues. The remaining $51,000 has not yet 
been targeted for a specific purpose. 

1. As previously noted, the proposed budget amendment 
would appropriate $30,000 in bond transaction fees. 
However, the body of the proposed resolution indicates that 
the proposed amendment to the SFRA's budget would 
permit a transfer of line items for the expenditure of $30,000 
for a personal services contract. As such, the proposed 
resolution should be amended to delete reference to "the 
transfer of line items" and replace it with "appropriate new 
revenues." 

2. Mr. Leaman Abrams of the Redevelopment Agency 
reports that the SFRA has advertised for the proposed 
consultant position but has not yet selected a consultant. As 
such, the Budget Analyst recommends that the $30,000 be 
placed on reserve pending selection of the consultant. 
Instead, the SFRA requests the proposed resolution be 
continued to the call of the Chair pending the SFRA's 
selection of a consultant. 

1. Amend the proposed resolution to delete reference to 
"transfer of line items" and replace with "appropriate new 
revenues" as described in Comment 1. 

2. Continue the proposed resolution as amended to the call 
of the Chair pending the SFRA's selection of a consultant as 
described in Comment 2. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



65 



-Memo to Finance Committee 
December 9, 1992 

Item 11 -File 197-92-5 

Note: This item was continued at the October 28, 1992 Finance Committee 
Meeting to allow the City Attorney to prepare legislation to effect changes 
in the distribution of Hotel Tax revenues. As of the writing of this report 
the City Attorney has not finalized the legislation. 

1. This item is a hearing to consider the Cultural Affairs Task Force Final 
Report. 

2. The Cultural Affairs Task Force, consisting of 59 representatives from 
various arts organizations, as well as from the private sector and City 
government, was created by the Board of Supervisors in March, 1991, to: (1) survey 
arts funding in San Francisco; (2) study current arts and cultural departments 
and policies in other major cities in the United States; (3) make recommendations 
to the Board of Supervisors on how San Francisco can enhance the public process 
and oversight, and improve the mechanisms by which the City supports the 
economic health and vitality of its diverse cultural life. The Cultural Affairs Task 
Force submitted its final report to the Board of Supervisors October 5, 1992. This is 
a hearing to consider the Cultural Affairs Task Force Final Report. 

3. Grants for the Arts (GFTA) is a City organization, funded by Hotel Tax 
revenues, that provides on-going grant funding to virtually all eligible San 
Francisco arts organizations that apply for such funding, in proportion to then- 
size. Grants for the Arts funds act as an on-going subsidy. Funds are not granted 
on a competitive basis, but all eligible applicants receive funding, subject to the 
availability of funds. The three basic eligibility requirements are as follows: (1) the 
organization must have 501(c)3 non-profit status or affiliation; (2) the organization 
must have a two year stable progr amming history in the area in which it is 
applying for funding, and (3) the organization must be located in San Francisco. 

4. According to Mr. John Kreidler of the San Francisco Foundation, a 
private nonprofit foundation, and a member of the Task Force, the Cultural 
Affairs Task Force was formed, in part, in response to criticism of the Grants for 
the Arts program by certain members of the arts community. Mr. Kreidler 
advises that some members of the arts community believed that GFTA funds 
could be distributed more equitably because: (1) some organizations of comparable 
size received substantially different grant amounts; and (2) large arts 
organizations, such as the Exploratorium, the Symphony, the Opera, the Ballet 
and ACT, by virtue of their size, received a disproportionate amount of GFTA's 
total funds. These large arts organizations are all Western European in their 
derivation, leading to allegations that the distribution of GFTA funds was racist. 
According to Mr. Kreidler, certain GFTA critics believed that funds should be 
redistributed, not based on size, but based on parity with the racial make-up of 
San Francisco. Under this distribution, if eight percent of San Francisco's 
population is African American, then eight percent of GFTA funds should be 
allocated to African American arts organizations. 



BOARD OF SU PERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



66 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 9, 1992 

5. The Cultural Affairs Task Force established the following recommended 
principles for the City's arts policy: 

• The City should strive to achieve cultural equity; 

• All forms of City involvement in the arts should include public 
participation, such as review panels including members of the public; 

• Artistic creativity is a civic good, and its encouragement by government 
is a fundamental mark of a civilized society; 

• Artistic expression is vital to our civic health. The arts and arts 
education are not luxuries; 

• A healthy arts environment thrives at all levels, including individual 
artists, grassroots and other small and mid-size organizations, and 
large arts institutions; 

• Keeping all the arts in San Francisco should be a priority, since the arts 
are a major employer in the City. 

6. Mr. Kreidler reports that in general, GFTA has been successful in 
apportioning grants to arts organizations based on size. However, Mr. Kreidler 
advises that some variation in the grant amount received by comparable 
organizations does exist. However, any such disparity in grant amounts would be 
accidental, and not based on the organization's merit, size or seniority. To ensure 
that organizations of comparable size receive comparable grants, the Task Force 
recommends that the current GFTA progressive formula, under which small 
institutions receive a greater percentage of their «mw «1 budget than large ones, 
be changed from a set of categories to a graduated curve. Each organization would 
receive a grant delineated by this graduated curve, based on the size of the 
organization. This graduated curve would resemble an income tax table, Mr. 
Kreidler reports. According to the Task Force's report, this would eliminate 
sharp drops in funding as organizations grow or shrink incrementally, and 
would eliminate disparities between organizations of comparable budget size. Ms. 
Kary Schulman of Grants for the Arts advises that the implementation of this 
curve is likely to negatively impact certain small and multi-cultural 
organizations, which are currently the only organizations that receive funds 
above the proposed curve. 

7. To further ensure that GFTA funds are distributed equitably, the Task 
Force's report recommends the establishment of a panel including artists and 
other arts professionals to consider first time applications for Grants for the Arts 
funding. Currently, applications are considered by an advisory committee 
consisting of San Francisco artists, arts patrons, and business and community 
leaders with experience in non-profit and arts management, Ms. Schulman 
reports. According to Ms. Schulman, if decisions were made by a panel such as 
that recommended by the Task Force, the process may be slower and more costly 
to administer. As noted above, GFTA funds are awarded to all eligible applicants, 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



67 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 9, 1992 

and grant amounts are distributed purely based on a formula, with no 
discretionary decisions. 

8. The Task Force's report recommends that a second grant fund be 
established to correct the perceived racial and cultural inequities of Grants for the 
Arts. This fund, to be called the Cultural Equity Endowment, would focus on the 
following four priorities: 

a. Cultural Equity Initiatives; 

b. Contracts for artwork to individual creative artists in all disciplines; 

c. Project grants to small and midsize arts organizations; and 

d. Facilities acquisition program, or Artspace Initiative. 

9. Unlike GFTA, grants from the Cultural Equity Endowment would be 
made on a competitive basis. Such grants would not act as a subsidy, because 
grants would not necessarily be on-going. Instead, the Cultural Equity 
Endowment would make purposeful investments for smaller arts groups which 
are representative of minority cultures, Mr. Kreidler reports. For example, a 
group might receive a sum of money to support start-up costs, or to market their 
work for a limited time. Organizations that receive Cultural Equity Endowment 
funds would not be ineligible to receive GFTA on-going grants in addition to the 
competitive grant received from the Cultural Equity Endowment. 

10. This proposed Cultural Equity Endowment is targeted to consist of 1.0 
percent and 1.5 percent of Hotel Tax funds during the first and second years, 
respectively, and two percent of Hotel Tax funds thereafter. The Task Force's 
report assumes that the Cultural Equity Endowment would commence in 1993-94, 
and that Hotel Tax revenues would increase by five percent annually. Based on 
these assumptions, and based on FY 1992-93 estimated Hotel Tax revenues of 
$55,562,400 in 1992-93 generated from the basic 8 percent Hotel Tax rate, the 
Budget Analyst estimates that the total dollar amount of the Cultural Equity 
Endowment would be as follows: 

• $583,405 in FY 1993-94 (one percent of the current estimated revenues 
plus a five percent increase); 

• $918,863 in FY 1994-95 (1.5 percent of the estimated FY 1993-94 revenues 
plus a five percent increase); and 

• $1,286,408 in FY 1995-96 (two percent of estimated FY 1994-95 total 
revenues plus a five percent increase. The Cultural Equity Endowment 
would consist of this two percent of Hotel Tax revenues in perpetuity; the 
estimated dollar amount would vary in future years based on the dollar 
amount of Hotel Tax revenues. 

Such an allocation would require that an amendment to the City's Hotel 
Tax Ordinance be approved by the Board of Supervisors. According to the Task 
Force report, this 1.0, 1.5 and eventually two percent of Hotel Tax Funds would 
consist of the following: 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



68 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 9, 1992 

(i) First, the Task Force requests that $300,000 be allocated to the Cultural 
Equity Endowment from "unallocated" Hotel Tax funds. The Budget Analyst notes 
that all Hotel Tax revenues are allocated based on a formula defined in the 
Administrative Code, and no unallocated Hotel Tax funds exist. The portion of 
Hotel Tax revenues deposited to the General Fund supports General Fund 
activities; and 

(ii) Second, to provide the balance of the Cultural Equity Endowment, the 
Task Force recommends the reduction, in equal parts, of the allocations to the 
following five recipients: 

(1) Moscone Convention Center/Brooks Hall/Civic Auditorium, which 
currently receives 42 percent; 

(2) the Convention and Visitors Bureau, which currently receives 10 
percent; 

(3) the War Memorial, which currently receives ten percent; 

(4) Candlestick Park, which currently receives 6.23 percent; and 

(5) the Publicity and Advertising Fund, which currently receives 17 percent. 

In FY 1993-94, assuming that $300,000 from "unallocated" Hotel Tax funds 
supported a portion of the estimated $583,405 FY 1993-94 Cultural Equity 
Endowment, the revenues of these five organizations would be reduced by a total of 
$283,405, or $56,681 each. If $300,000 from "unallocated" Hotel Tax funds are not 
allocated to the Cultural Equity Endowment, assuming that the overall 
percentage goals for the Endowment do not change, the five organizations would 
support the entire estimated $583,405 for FY 1993-94, or $116,681 each. The 
amounts these five organizations would contribute would increase in FY 1994-95 
and FY 1995-96 to support the increase in the Cultural Equity Endowment from 1 
percent in FY 1993-94 to 1.5 percent in FY 1994-95 to 2 percent in FY 1995-96 and 
thereafter. 

The Budget Analyst notes that since the Hotel Tax revenues of the five 
recipients would be reduced by the same dollar reduction to support the Cultural 
Equity Endowment regardless of the total amount of such funds received by their 
organization, the impact of this proposed allocation on the five organizations 
would vary significantly. For example, based on the formula contained in the 
Task Force's report to support the Cultural Equity Endowment, each 
organization's revenues would be reduced by an estimated $56,681 in FY 1993-94. 
$56,681 would represent a 1.6 percent reduction in Hotel Tax revenues for 
Candlestick Park, which receives the lowest portion of such revenues, but only a 
.2 percent reduction in Hotel Tax revenues for the Moscone Center. 

The Task Force estimates that the dollar amount allocated to these five 
organizations would not decrease, because the Task Force anticipates that Hotel 
Tax revenues will increase 5 percent per year in 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96. 
Instead, the Cultural Equity Endowment funds would come from a reduction in 
future increases. Assuming the five percent annual increase in Hotel Tax 
revenues included in the Task Force's report is correct, the Budget Analyst 
concurs that each of the five organizations would receive increases in the dollar 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



69 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 9, 1992 

amount of their Hotel Tax revenues. However, the Budget Analyst notes that if the 
dollar amount of Hotel Tax funds allocated to these organizations does not 
increase over time, the value of the amount allocated to these organizations would 
decrease because the value of a dollar decreases over time due to inflation. In 
other words, expenses for these organizations would go up due to inflation, but if 
their anticipated revenue increase was allocated to the Cultural Equity 
Endowment, the organizations would need to identify areas for expenditure 
reductions. 

The Budget Analyst further notes that Candlestick Park Hotel Tax funds 
are currently entirely allocated to support bond issue debt service. In addition, 
approximately $24,121,500 million, or 62 percent of the Moscone Center's 
approximate total FY 1992-93 budget of $38,667,000 support the debt service. Any 
reduction in Hotel Tax funds that now support the debt service for Candlestick 
Park and Moscone Center would need to be paid from the General Fund, since 
debt service must be paid. 

Finally, the Budget Analyst notes that Hotel Tax revenues will not 
necessarily increase by 5 percent per year. Hotel Tax revenues are paid by 
tourists, and tourism generally declines during economic downturns. A 5 percent 
annual increase is higher than the current rate of inflation. Thus, an assumption 
that Hotel Tax revenues will increase 5 percent per year assumes that either the 
number of tourists staying in hotels or the rates charged by such hotels will 
increase in future years, an assumption that may not be realized because of the 
current economic recession. Historically, the 8 percent of the total 11 percent Hotel 
Tax has generated the following actual revenues: 



FY. 


Amount 


Percent Increase 


1987-88 


$44,357,994 


n/a 


1988-89 


48,810,018 


10.0 % 


1989-90 


46,120,913 


(5.5) 


1990-91 


50,588,835 


9.7 


1991-92 


52^89,209 


3.6 



As demonstrated by actual revenues over the past five years, Hotel Tax 
revenues are inconsistent. In 1989-90, Hotel Tax revenues actually decreased 5.5 
percent from the prior year. Most recently, revenues were less than the 5 percent 
annual increase estimated by the Task Force. 

(iii) Third, the Task Force recommends a 50 percent reduction of the .5 
percent of Hotel Tax Funds now assigned to the Unanticipated Events Fund, and 
the allocation of this .25 percent to the Cultural Equity Endowment. The Task 
Force's Report appears to recommend that this .25 percent would be in addition to 
the 1 percent, 1.5 percent, and 2 percent goals noted above. Ms. Schulman advises 
that GFTA generally expends all its Unanticipated Events funds either for City 
events, such as parades for successful professional sports teams, or for special 
events such as multi-cultural initiatives sponsored by small and medium sized 
arts organizations. 

BOARD OF SUP ERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



70 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 9, 1992 

11. According to Ms. Joanne Chow Winship, Director of the Arts 
Commission, the Arts Commission was recommended as the agency to 
administer the Cultural Equity Endowment. Ms. Winship advises that because of 
the nature of the proposed Cultural Equity Endowment, the Endowment would be 
expensive to administer. According to Ms. Winship, the Task Force envisioned a 
decision-making process involving a great deal of public input. In addition, 
grants to individual artists, which would include sample artwork, require that 
applications be inventoried and artwork be returned. These activities increase 
costs, so that approximately 20 percent of the Cultural Equity Endowment would 
be required to support administrative costs, Ms. Winship estimates. 

12. The Task Force recommends the restoration of the Arts Liaison position 
in the Mayor's Office. This Arts Liaison position was eliminated by the Mayor in 
the FY 1992-93 budget, resulting in a lay-off. The FY 1992-93 salary range for this 
Arts Liaison position, a Mayor's Assistant III, is $47,659 to $50,008 plus fringe 
benefits. According to the Task Force's report, 23 City organizations provide arts 
services, and each of these 23 organizations has entirely separate policies and 
procedures. Without a coordinating organization or individual, according to Mr. 
Jeff Jones, arts fundraiser and Task Force member, duplication of services may 
occur and arts resources may not be fully utilized. 

13. The Task Force recommends that, in addition to the Cultural Equity 
Endowment, GFTA funds should be increased by two percent. The Task Force 
recommends that such an increase be funded beginning in 1995, when the 
Candlestick Park revenue bonds have been retired, using a portion of the 6.23 
percent of Hotel Tax funds currently allocated to Candlestick Park 

14. The Task Force recommends that a General Obligation bond issue be 
placed on the ballot in 1994 to support the capital improvement and infrastructure 
needs of the Neighborhood Cultural Centers. Mr. Jones advises that several 
recent propositions have proposed bond issues for capital improvements to Davies 
Symphony Hall and the Opera House. The Task Force recommends that any 
future General Obligation bond measures relating to arts issues include the 
Neighborhood Cultural Centers. The Task Force further recommends that 
adequate maintenance of the Neighborhood Cultural Centers become a line item 
in the City budget. The Task Force did not specify a funding source for this 
proposed line item. These recommendations address the Task Force's concern 
with cultural and racial equity. 

15. The Task Force's report recommends that the Board of Supervisors 
request an independent study of the War Memorial Performing Arts Center to 
determine whether economies can be realized in the administration of the 
Performing Arts Center. Mr. Jones reports that duplication of effort may exist 
between the War Memorial administration and the administration of the San 
Francisco Symphony and Opera. Ms. Beth Murray of the War Memorial advises 
that the War Memorial must have a separate administration from the Symphony 
and the Opera, since the War Memorial is a Charter mandated department, 
while the Symphony and the Opera conduct businesses entirely separate from the 
City. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



71 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 9, 1992 

16. Mr. Jones further reports that the Symphony and Opera pay 22tf per 
square foot for office space in Davies Symphony Hall and the Opera House, which 
is well below the fair market value for civic center office space. Ms. Murray 
advises that the Symphony and Opera pay lower office rental rates because those 
organizations paid for the conversion of unusable space into office space, creating 
capital improvements which benefit the City at no cost to the City. The War 
Memorial is therefore collecting rent for space that was not previously usable. The 
low rents paid by those organizations are, in part, in exchange for the cost of 
capital improvements. 

17. The Task Force recommends that the Board of Supervisors consider the 
recommendations for better planning and community outreach by the Yerba 
Buena Center for the Arts that are contained in a recent report by Melanie Beene 
and Associates which was commissioned by the San Francisco Redevelopment 
Agency. This report made a number of recommendations, in the following areas: 
Mission Statement; Facilities; Programs; Marketing and Audience Development; 
Public, Community and Constituent Relations; Governance; Management; and 
Budget Projections. The Redevelopment Agency has established an Action Plan in 
response to the recommendations contained in the Melanie Beene and Associates 
report. 

18. The Task Force recommends that Proposition J Children's Fund 
monies be allocated to an Arts Education Program. According to Section 6.415 of 
the Charter, services eligible for Children's Fund monies are limited to child 
care; job readiness, training and placement programs; health and social services; 
educational programs; recreation; delinquency prevention; and library services. 
Arts and cultural activities are not specifically included in this list of eligible 
programs, but certain arts and cultural activities may fit into the eligible 
categories, such as education, recreation, or job training. For example, an Arts 
Education Program, such as the one requested to be funded, would most likely fit 
under the category of educational programs. Mr. Jones advises that the Task 
Force recommends that the definition of eligible services be expanded to include 
arts and cultural activities. Such an expanded definition would require a Charter 
amendment. 

19. According to the Task Force's report, the Task Force was unable to 
complete its survey of funding for the arts in San Francisco. The Task Force 
therefore recommends that the Board of Supervisors direct the Budget Analyst to 
survey and analyze all City arts funding in order to obtain an accurate picture of 
how the City spends its arts dollars. 

20. In general, the portion of the Task Force's report regarding funding is 
focused on the creation of a Cultural Equity Endowment to be funded from a 
reallocation of Hotel Tax revenues. However, as mandated by the original 
legislation, the report does not provide an overall picture of current or potential 
sources of funding for San Francisco arts and cultural activities. In addition, the 
report does not contain a comparison of San Francisco arts activities to such 
activities in other major cities. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



72 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 9, 1992 

21. The Cultural Affairs Task Force Final Report was unanimously 
approved by the Cultural Affairs Task Force, with one abstention. 



BOARD OF fif JPERVTSORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



7-} 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 9, 1992 



TtAm12 -127-92-10 
Item: 



Description: 



Ordinance amending Part III, Municipal Code, by adding 
Section 75.1 to require persons filing a statement of 
fictitious business name pursuant to California Business 
and Professions Code Section 17900 et seq. to provide proof 
of compliance, including payment of all appropriate license 
fees, with all applicable sections of Article II of Part III of 
the Municipal Code. 

The City imposes three types of business registration 
requirements. All businesses in San Francisco are required 
to obtain a business tax registration certificate from the 
Tax Collector, in order for the City to enforce collection of 
business taxes (businesses with annual gross receipts under 
$15,000 are not required to pay a business tax registration 
fee, but still must obtain the certificate). In addition, some, 
but not all, businesses are required to obtain regulatory 
permits of various kinds, such as Health Department 
permits for restaurants or Fire Department permits for gas 
stations, which are issued by the individual departments. 
Finally, some, but not all, businesses are required to obtain 
business licenses, including, for example, licenses for 
laundries, sightseeing operations, theatres, automotive 
repairs shops, and others. 

There is significant overlap between businesses which 
require business permits and business licenses, but some 
businesses are required to obtain either a permit or a 
license. If a business is required to obtain a permit and a 
license, the approved permit will be submitted by the 
appropriate City department to the Tax Collector pending 
payment of any appropriate license fees. Fees for issuance 
of business tax registration certificates and business 
licenses are collected by the Tax Collector. 

In addition, the Recorder administers the filing and 
issuance of fictitious business name statements, which are 
required of individuals who adopt a name different than 
their own as a name for their business. 

The proposed ordinance would amend the Administrative 
Code to require that individuals who file a statement of 
fictitious business name with the Recorder must provide 
proof of payment of all appropriate business license fees, or 
a waiver of any license requirements, from the Tax 
Collector before the fictitious business name statement will 
be issued. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



74 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 9, 1992 



Comments: 



The proposed ordinance would not require persons filing a 
fictitious business name statement to present proof that 
they have obtained the required business tax registration 
certificate and any required permits. 

1. Ms. Anita Jin, Chief of the Business License Division of 
the Tax Collector's office, states that currently there is not a 
specific procedure for businesses to follow to obtain 
business tax registration certificates, any required permits 
or business licenses, and fictitious business name (FBN) 
statements. She states that since most commercial 
establishments in the City use a fictitious business name, 
the proposed ordinance would be an effective way to ensure 
that businesses do obtain any permits and licenses which 
are required under the Administrative Code. 

2. The proposed ordinance would require all businesses 
filing a FBN statement to present to the Recorder either a 
business license issued by the Tax Collector or a waiver of 
any applicable license requirements. The City and County 
Recorder, Mr. Bruce Jamison, states that in order to enforce 
the proposed ordinance effectively with existing resources, 
the Recorder's office would require either a business license 
or a waiver of the business license for every business Ming 
a FBN statement. Mr. Jamison states that a single 
document (waiver or license) issued by the Tax Collector 
would be needed, since the Recorder is not in a position to 
evaluate and enforce the many different business license 
requirements of the Administrative Code. However, Ms. 
Jin reports that not all businesses are required to obtain 
business licenses, and the Tax Collector currently does not 
issue waivers to those businesses which are not required to 
obtain a business license. Therefore, a waiver of business 
license requirements is not available from the Tax Collector 
under existing procedures. 

3. Under Article 12-B, Section 1003 of the Administrative 
Code, all businesses are required to obtain a business tax 
registration certificate from the Tax Collector and pay a 
business registration fee (although businesses with annual 
gross receipts of less than $15,000 are exempt from the fee). 
Therefore, a business tax registration certificate is required 
to be issued by the Tax Collector to all businesses in San 
Francisco. The proposed ordinance would not require 
businesses to present evidence that they have met the 
business tax registration requirements of Section 1003 of 
the Administrative Code. 

4. The Budget Analyst notes that, since all businesses are 
required to obtain a business tax registration certificate but 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



7S 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 9, 1992 



not all businesses are required to obtain a business permit 
or a business license, a more effective means to ensure that 
all appropriate permit, license, and business tax 
registration requirements are met before a FBN statement 
is filed would be as follows: 

1) Require businesses to present evidence to the Tax 
Collector that they have obtained any required permits and 
any required business licenses (which are issued through 
the Tax Collector's Office), before a business tax 
registration certificate is issued or renewed. 

2) Require businesses filing a FBN statement with the 
Recorder to present the business tax registration certificate 
issued by the Tax Collector. 

However, Mr. Richard Sullivan of the Tax Collector's Office 
states that the Tax Collector would not be able to monitor 
compliance with all of the permit and licensing 
requirements of the Administrative Code, as recommended 
above, because 1) the issuance of permits is sometimes 
within the control of the Tax Collector, but sometimes it is 
solely within the discretion of individual departments, and 
2) because approximately 8,000 businesses are initiated or 
change ownership in any given year, and the Tax Collector 
could not enforce compliance with all permit and business 
license requirements for all of these businesses with 
existing resources. 

For these reasons, Mr. Sullivan, on behalf of the Tax 
Collector's Office, has requested that this matter be 
continued for two weeks, so that the Tax Collector can 
evaluate alternative strategies to enhance compliance with 
the business registration requirements of the 
Administrative Code. 

5. Ms. Jin indicates that the individual City departments 
that issue permits, such as the Fire and Health 
departments, are responsible to inspect businesses for 
compliance with permit requirements. Under the 
Administrative Code, enforcement of business license 
requirements is delegated to the Police Department, whose 
officers are instructed to inspect businesses for the 
appropriate business license as they patrol their beat. The 
Tax Collector is responsible to enforce compliance with the 
business tax. 

6. Mr. Andrew Bacigalupi in the Investigations Division of 
the Tax Collector's Office states that field investigators 
from his agency inspect businesses for required permits and 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



76 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 9, 1992 



Recommendation: 



licenses, but that the investigators' activities focus 
primarily on financial audits of businesses for compliance 
with the City's business tax. Mr. Bacigalupi states that, in 
his opinion, certain areas of the City do have large numbers 
of businesses that have not obtained the appropriate 
permits and licenses. However, Mr. Bacigalupi states that 
the business tax registration certificate, which was enacted 
in 1988, is also unfamiliar to many San Francisco business 
owners. Mr. Bacigalupi states, in his opinion, the City's 
enforcement of all permit, license, and business tax 
registration requirements would be strengthened by 
increased consolidation of these requirements. 

7. Business license fees vary considerably based on the 
type of business license which is required, ranging from $20 
annually for fumigation firms to $2,175 annually for each 
garbage truck operated by a sanitation and refuse disposal 
company, as of July 14, 1992. 

8. The proposed ordinance would amend the Administrative 
Code by adding Section 75.1. The Budget Analyst notes 
that, as of July 14, 1992, the Administrative Code already 
contained an existing Section 75.1, which required a license 
fee surcharge for calendar year 1973. Therefore, a new 
Section number should be assigned for the proposed 
ordinance, or the existing Section 75.1 should be repealed. 

Continue the proposed ordinance for two weeks, as 
requested by the Tax Collector's Office. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



77 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 9, 1992 

Items 13. 14. 15 and 16 - Files 101-92-10.1. 101-92-10.2. 38-92-27. 101-92-10. 



Departments; 



Items: 



Source of Funds: 



Description: 



Department of Public Works (DPW) 

Bureau of Architecture 

San Francisco Public Library 

Item 16 - Resolution (File 101-92-10) incorporating by 
reference findings made by the Library Commission and the 
Arts Commission and adopting further findings pursuant to 
the California Environmental Quality Act relating to the 
appropriation of funds for the new Main Library Project, as 
analyzed in the San Francisco Main Library Final 
Environmental Impact Report (FEIR). Case No. 90.808E. 

Item 13 - Ordinance (File 101-92-10.1) appropriating 
$86,213,304 for capital improvement project (Public Library 
Main and Branches) 1988 Library Improvement Bond 
Program for fiscal year 1992-93. 

Item 14 - Ordinance (File 101-92-10.2) appropriating 
$3,200,241 of interest earnings for capital improvement 
project (Public Library Main and Branches) 1988 Library 
Improvement Bond Program for fiscal year 1992-93. 

Item 15 - Resolution (38-92-27) accepting a gift to the San 
Francisco Public Library in the amount of $9,614,568 from the 
Library Foundation of San Francisco to fund building 
enhancements for the new Main Library. 

A total of $99,028,113 would be authorized and/or 
appropriated as follows: 

1988 Library Improvement Bond 

Funds (Item 13) $86,213,304 

1988 Library Improvement Bond Funds 

Interest Earnings (Item 14) 3,200,241 

Library Foundation of 

San Francisco (Item 15) 9.614.568 

Total $99,028,113 

The proposed resolution (File 101-92-10) would incorporate the 
findings made in the Final Environmental Impact Report 
(FEIR) for the new Main Library. The draft EIR was issued 
in November, 1991. 

The proposed ordinances (Files 101-92-10.1 and 101-92-10.2) 
which would appropriate Library Improvement Bond funds 
and related interest earnings, and the proposed resolution 

BOARD OF SI JPERVLSORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



78 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 9, 1992 



(File 38-92-27) which would authorize the Public Library to 
accept a gift from the Library Foundation of San Francisco, 
would provide funds for the following: 

Construction Costs: 



Construction Contract 


$86,619,800 


Construction Contingencies 


2,792,709 


Library Project Management 


251,700 


DPW Construction and 




Project Management* 


4,388,787 


Architectural and 




Engineering - 




Contract Modifications 


860,800 


Construction Management - 




Contract Modifications 


272,300 


Art Enrichment 


840,000 


Utilities 


400,000 


Collection Relocation 


500,000 


Testing and Specialized 




Inspection 


800,000 


Infrastructure Repair 


530,000 


DPW Architectural and 




Engineering Services - 




Branch Libraries 


772.017 


Subtotal-Construction Costs 


$99,028,113 


Building Enhancements (Funded by the library 


Foundation of San Francisco ), included in the 


$86,619300 award of construction contract above: 


Signage and Graphics 


$189,262 


Chalk and Tackboards 


93,000 


Security System 


661,856 


Windowshades and Blinds 


140,435 


Lockers 


91,776 


Library Stacks 


2,280,339 


Book Conveyor 


625,705 


Bookcases 


1,248,452 


Carpet 


1,305,885 


Auditorium Fixtures 


2,279,580 


Pioneer Monument 




Relocation 


698.278 


Subtotal-Building 




Enhancements 


$9,614,568 



* Includes $200,000 budgeted for a work order to the City Attorney's Office. See 
Comment No. 4. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

79 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 9, 1992 

Comments: 1. The proposed resolution (File 101-92-10), which would 

adopt the findings of the Final Environmental Impact Report 
(FEIR) for the new Main Library, would conclude that the 
Board of Supervisors finds that the benefits of the new Main 
Library project would override the unmitigated adverse effect 
on the environment. These unmitigated adverse affects 
include contribution to traffic, cumulative passenger loading 
on MUNI, BART and other transit carriers, and a potential 
of increased pollution. The proposed resolution (File 101-92- 
10) would also incorporate the mitigation measures which 
are proposed in the FEIR, which relate to archaeological 
monitoring of the site excavation, construction noise, 
temporary pedestrian traffic relocation and sprinkling the 
demolition sites with water to lessen potential air quality 
impacts. 

2. The City Planning Commission certified the FEIR on 
February 27, 1992, and on May 7, 1992 found the new Main 
Library project is in conformity with the eight priority 
policies of Planning Code Section 101.1 relating to the Master 
Plan. The Arts Commission approved the FEIR on April 6, 
1992. The Library Commission also approved the FEIR on 
April 17, 1992, and adopted the Mitigation Monitoring 
Program, which specifies actions to be taken to implement 
the mitigation measures included in the FEIR. 

3. As noted on the prior page, $86,619,800 would be used to 
fund the construction contract for the new Main Library. 
According to Mr. Russ Abel of the Department of Public 
Works (DPW) Bureau of Architecture, the construction 
contract was subject to a competitive bid process. The 
amount budgeted for the construction contract-related 
contingencies, of $3,044,419, represents approximately 3.5 
percent of the total construction contract of $86,619,800. Mr. 
Abel anticipates that another supplemental appropriation 
ordinance (in addition to Item 14), funded through interest 
earnings from the Library Improvement Bond Funds, would 
be submitted to the Board of Supervisors at a later date to fund 
any remaining contingency costs. Huber, Hunt and Nichols, 
the proposed construction contractor, is the low-bidder for the 
new Main Library. The Branch Library construction 
contract(s) would be put out to bid at a later date. According 
to Mr. Ed Lee of the Human Rights Commission (HRC), 
although Huber, Hunt and Nichols is not a City-certified 
MBE, WBE or LBE firm, none of the bidders for the 
construction contract were City-certified. Mr. Lee reports 
that Huber, Hunt and Nichols has used a good faith effort in 
using MBE and WBE subcontractors, and has specified that 
of the total proposed construction contract of $86,619,800, 14 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



80 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 9, 1992 



percent of the total contract (approximately $12.1 million) 
would be subcontracted to MBE firms, and 2 percent 
(approximately $1.7 million) of the total contract would be 
provided to WBE firms. Therefore, based upon the use of 
MBE and WBE subcontractors, Mr. Lee reports that the firm 
of Huber, Hunt and Nichols has been recommended by the 
Human Rights Commission. 

4. The $4,388,787 budgeted for DPW Construction and Project 
Management Services includes $4,188,787 for DPW 
Construction and Project Management Services, and a work 
order of $200,000 for the City Attorney's Office. The proposed 
funds would be used for existing DPW bond-funded 
personnel. Mr. Abel reports that at the end of the project, 
these existing bond funded staff would either be terminated 
or reassigned to other DPW bond-funded projects. The 
following services would be provided: 





Average Hourly 


Task 


Rate 


Project Management 


$95.66 


On-Site Inspection 


84.69 


Progress Payments 


77.86 


Change Orders 


74.30 


Project Close-Out 


110.68 



The $200,000 budgeted for a lump-sum work order to the City 
Attorney's Office is to evaluate claims and other related legal 
issues as a result of the construction and post-construction 
activities. It is estimated that 120 construction change orders 
would be issued during construction. 

5. The DPW has indicated that of the $4,388,787 for DPW 
Construction and Project Management, a total of $834,128 
would be required for FY 1992-93, including $100,000 for 
services provided by the City Attorney's Office. During fiscal 
years 1993-94 and FY 1994-95, the remaining $3,554,659, 
including $100,000 for the City Attorney's Office, would be 
spent. Therefore, $3,554,659 should be reserved, including 
$100,000 for the City Attorney's Office, pending the details of 
the hours needed and the annual salary standardization 
increases, for FY 1993-94 and FY 1994-95. Mr. Norman 
Karasick, City Architect, disagrees with this 
recommendation. Mr. Karasick reports that these DPW 
Construction and Project Management funds are needed in 
order to ensure the timely completion of the project, and Mr. 
Karasick reports that the DPW is relatively certain on the 
estimated number of staff hours needed. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 9, 1992 



6. The $251,700 budgeted for Library Project Management 
services would be used for the following: 



Librarv Personnel 


FY 1993-94 
(3 months)* 


FY 1994-95 
(12 months)* 


3638 Chief Librarian 
3632 Librarian II 
1446 Secretary II 


$25,121 

16,826 

7.084 


$102^95 
70,670 
29.704 


Subtotal 


$49,031 


$202,669 


Total 


$251,700 





*Includes fringe benefits. 

Ms. Kathy Page of the Public Library reports that these funds 
would not be used until FY 1993-94 and FY 1994-95. 
Therefore, the $251,700 budgeted for Library Project 
Management services should be reserved pending annual 
salary standardization increases, and specific staffing 
requirements. 

7. The $860,800 budgeted for Architectural and Engineering 
Contract Modifications would be used for contract 
modifications which have been requested by the 
Architectural and Engineering firms, Pei, Cobb, Freed & 
Partners, and Simon, Martin, Winkelstein and Moris. 
Specifically, the funds would be used for Architectural and 
Engineering services for the following: 



Alternate Bid Items 
Building System Upgrades 
Brooks Hall Ramp/Fulton Street 
Base Isolation Engineering 
Drawing Reproductions 
Contingencies 
Total 



$181,505 
44,480 
65,405 
89,227 
90,000 
390.183 

$860,800 



8. The $272,300 budgeted for Construction Management 
Contract Modifications would be used for contract 
modifications which have been requested by the Construction 
Management firm, O'Brien Krietzberg. Specifically, these 
funds would be used for the following construction 
management services: 



Archeological Services 
Contingencies 
Total 



$188,538 

83.762 

$272,300 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



82 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 9, 1992 



9. The $840,000 budgeted for Art Enrichment services would 
be used to provide payment to four artists whose work will be 
incorporated into the construction phase of the project. 
According to Ms. Susan Pontius of the Arts Commission, the 
proposed supplemental funds would be used to continue 
funding for the four artists who have been selected to provide 
art enrichment services (including artwork construction, 
installation and related costs) and also for Arts Commission 
administrative services related to the new Main Library. 
Specifically, the proposed funds would be used as follows: 

Alice Aycock 

Stairway and Hanging Sculpture $378,683 

Ann Hamilton 

Diagonal Core Wall Installation 251,371 

Nayland Blake 

Light Wall 59,245 

Lothar Baumgarten 

Carved Granite and Painting 135.131 

Subtotal Payments to Artists $824,430 

Arts Commission Administrative Costs 
Inclu des funding for Curator lis (.19 
FTEs) with related overhead costs 15.570 

Total Art Enrichment $840,000 

10. The $400,000 budgeted for Utilities would be provided to 
Pacific, Gas & Electric to install the electrical work into the 
new Main Library during construction. According to Mr. 
Abel, this estimate has been provided by Pacific, Gas & 

Electric. 

11. The $500,000 budgeted for Collection Relocation costs 
would fund the relocation of the Library collection from the 
existing Main Library, and the collection in storage at the 
Presidio to the new Main Library. According to Ms. Page, 
the $500,000 estimate was based upon estimates provided by 
other major libraries, including Los Angeles and Chicago, 
which recently relocated their collections. Ms. Page 
anticipates that a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the 
relocation contract and the selection of a contractor would not 
occur until FY 1994-95. Therefore, the $500,000 budgeted for 
relocation costs should be reserved pending the selection of a 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



RT 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 9, 1992 



consultant, the MBE/WBE status of the consultant, and 
finalized cost details. 

12. The $800,000 budgeted for Testing and Specialized 
Inspection costs would be provided both for City staff and to 
the existing Construction Management firm, O'Brien 
Krietzberg. The breakdown of the $800,000 is as follows: 

DPW Personnel 

DPW Materials Testing Lab Services $211,000 

DPW Inspection Personnel Costs 
FY 1992-93 25,293 

FY 1993-94 to FY 1994-95 107,827 

O'Brien Krietzberg 455.880 

Total Testing and Specialized Inspection $800,000 

According to Mr. Abel, the City lacks the necessary 
machinery to complete all of the Specialized Inspection, such 
as drying shrinkage testing, air dry unit weight of concrete 
tests and welding inspection. O'Brien Krietzberg would be 
selecting a subcontractor to perform these services. Included 
in the $455,880 budgeted for O'Brien Krietzberg would be a 10 
percent fee, or $45,588, which would be retained by the 
consultant, with a balance of $410,292 for a subconsultant to 
accomplish the testing work. Mr. Abel reports that the City 
has not issued its own Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for 
these Specialized Inspection services because the 
construction schedule has already been established and the 
RFQ process could not be done in a timely manner. However, 
because the subconsultant has not yet been selected, the 
$455,880 should be reserved pending the selection of a 
subcontractor, the MBE/WBE status of the consultant and 
finalized cost details. In addition, $107,827 should be 
reserved for DPW Inspection personnel during FY 1993-94 
and FY 1994-95 pending annual salary standardization 
increases, and specific staffing requirements. 

13. The $530,000 budgeted for Infrastructure Repair would be 
used for DPW personnel to repair and replace sidewalks and 
roads which may be damaged during construction. 
However, specific staffing requirements have not yet been 
determined. Therefore, the $530,000 budgeted for 
Infrastructure Repair should be reserved pending details of 
specific repairs required and staffing requirements. 

14. The $772,017 budgeted for the Architectural and 
Engineering Services at the Branch Libraries would be used 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



84 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 9, 1992 

for DPW personnel during beginning in FY 1993-94. Mr. 
Abel reports that the budget for design, administration and 
construction contracts has not yet been determined. 
Therefore, the $772,017 budgeted for DPW Architectural and 
Engineering Services should be reserved pending a specific 
budget, including salary standardization details. 

15. General Obligation Bond Funds cannot be used to fund 
certain building enhancements such as furniture and 
equipment. Therefore, the Library Foundation of San 
Francisco, through fundraising efforts, would provide these 
building enhancements items. These items would be 
purchased under the construction contract. According to 
Ms. Page, all of the above -lis ted building enhancement items 
include installation and maintenance costs. In addition, Ms. 
Page reports that the $698,278 budgeted for the Pioneer 
Monument relocation would be provided to the construction 
contractor. The Pioneer Monument would be relocated to 
Fulton Street, between Hyde Street and Larkin Street. The 
FEER, which the proposed resolution would adopt (File 101- 
92-10) would also find that the Pioneer Monument does not 
contribute to the historical and cultural significance of the 
Civic Center area, and therefore, its relocation would not 
have a significant negative impact on the environment. 

Reco mmen d a tions: 1. Approval of the proposed resolution (101-92-10), under 
which the Pioneer Monument would be relocated, is a policy 
matter for the Board of Supervisors. 

2. Amend the proposed ordinance (101-92-10.1) to reserve 
funds totalling $6,172,083 from Library Improvement 
Bond Funds for the following items: 

• DPW Construction and Project 

Management (See Comment No. 5) $3,554,659 

• Library Project Management 

(See Comment No. 6) 251,700 

• Collection Relocation 

(See Comment No. 11) 500,000 

• Specialized Inspection Consultant 

(See Comment No. 12) 455,880 

• DPW Inspection Costs 

(See Comment No. 12) 107,827 

• DPW Infrastructure Repair 

(See Comment No. 13) 530,000 

• DPW Architecture and 
Engineering Services 
Branch Libraries 

(See Comment No. 14) $772.017 



BOARD OF S UPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 9, 1992 



Total Reserved Funds $6,172,083 

As previously noted, Mr. Karasick disagrees with the 
recommendation to reserve the $3,554,659 for DPW 
Construction and Project Management of the $6,172,083 in 
total recommended reserved funds. 

3. Approve the proposed ordinance (File 101-92-10.1) as 
amended. 

4. Approve the proposed ordinance (File 101-92-10.2). 

5. Approve the proposed ordinance (38-92-27). 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



86 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 9, 1992 

Item 17 -File 28-92-12 

Department: Department of Public Works (DPW) 



Item: 



Amount: 



Resolution authorizing the Director of DPW to take necessary 
measures to protect the health, welfare and property of the 
citizens of San Francisco by performing the necessary work 
to replace the damaged sidewalks, driveways, tree basins, 
side sewer vents and fencing in areas of heavy pedestrian 
traffic. 

$27,309 



Source of Funds Defective Sidewalk Repair Revolving Fund 

Description: The City Charter requires property owners to maintain 

sidewalks, driveways, tree basins, side sewer vents and 
fencing in front of and around their property. If there is a 
complaint to the DPW about a damaged sidewalk, the DPW 
notifies the appropriate property owner who in turn has 60 
days to abate the problem. If the damage is not repaired 
within 60 days, the DPW conducts the necessary repairs and 
charges the property owner for the costs incurred. The funds 
used to conduct the necessary repairs comes from the 
Defective Sidewalk Repair Revolving Fund. When the 
property owners reimburse the City for the expenses to 
conduct the repairs, the monies are deposited into the 
Defective Sidewalk Repair Revolving Fund. 

The DPW normally issues an annual contract to a private 
company to provide the repair services. However, the DPW 
has a backlog of approximately 2,300 damaged properties and 
has not selected a contractor for FY 1992-93. Thus, in 
accordance with Section 6.3 of the City's Administrative 
Code, the DPW has executed an emergency contract in the 
amount of $27,309 with Tarn L. Williams Concrete 
Contractors and Associates, a City certified WBE firm, to 
conduct emergency repairs to various damaged sidewalks, 
curbs, driveways, tree basins, side sewer vents and fencing. 

Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



87 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 9, 1992 

Item 18 - File 97-92-63 

Note: This item was transferred from the November 17, 1992 Administration and 
Oversight Committee Meeting. 

1. The proposed ordinance would amend the San Francisco Administrative 
Code by amending Section 10.117-68, which establishes and governs the 
maintenance of the Cable Television Access Development and Programming Fund, 
by providing for the balance of all funds remaining in the Fund at the close of each 
Fiscal Year to be carried forward and accumulated in said Fund. 

2. The Cable Television Access Development and Programming Fund (CATV 
Fund) was established by the Board of Supervisors for the purpose of receiving 0.2 
percent of the Franchise Fee from Viacom which was to be used for development of 
municipal, educational and public access to cable television and related 
programming. Section 10.117-68 currently provides that the balance of 
appropriated funds remaining in the CATV Fund at the close of each fiscal year 
shall be deemed to have been provided for a specific purpose and shall be carried 
forward and accumulated in the CATV Fund for the purposes for which the CATV 
Fund was established. Section 10.117-68 also provides that the balance of 
unappropriated funds remaining in the CATV Fund at the close of each fiscal year 
shall be transferred to the General Fund as franchise and permit fee revenue. 

3. The proposed ordinance would delete the language in Section 10.117-68 
that currently permits the transfer of the balance of unappropriated funds 
remaining in the CATV Fund at the close of each fiscal to the General Fund 
resulting in the requirement that all funds, either appropriated or unappropriated, 
be retained in the CATV Fund and carried forward to the next fiscal year. 
Therefore, transfers of unappropriated funds from the CATV Fund to the General 
Fund would not be automatic in the future and would instead require specific 
authorization by the Board of Supervisors. 

Comments 

1. Ms. Susan Maher of the Controller's Office reports that although the 
current provisions of Section 10.117-68 provide that the balance of unappropriated 
funds remaining in the CATV Fund at the close of each fiscal year shall be 
transferred to the General Fund, no such transfers have been made in the past, 
since the establishment of the CATV Fund in 1987. 

2. At their meeting of October 27, 1992 the Administration and Oversight 
Committee held a hearing (File 100-92-2.1) to consider pending revisions to the 
appropriations of the Department of the Board of Supervisors totaling $130,000 in 
reductions. The $130,000 included a total of $74,096 in reductions to Official 
Advertising ($15,294), Reproduction ($20,000), Mail Services ($5,000), Data Word 
Processing Equipment Maintenance ($3,000) and a reduction in the Budget 
Analyst's contract ($30,802). The $55,904 balance of the $130,000 reduction 
($130,000 less $74,096) was to be met by an $8,208 increase in revenues and a 
transfer of funds from the CATV Fund of $47,696. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 9, 1992 

3. The Board of Supervisors adopted a motion requesting the Clerk of the 
Board of Supervisors to undertake the following to eliminate the $82,304 budgetary 
shortfall ($130,000 less the $47,696 transfer from the CATV Fund) that otherwise 
would have required increased fees of $8,208 and expenditure reductions totaling 
$74,096: 

A. Take all necessary steps to provide more flexibility to the Board of 
Supervisors to make use of a portion of the accumulated unspent 
resources in the CATV Fund without reducing current appropriations for 
educational access and public access. 

B. Ask the Controller to prepare necessary revisions in the Board's 
1992-93 budget to maintain the level of services from the Budget Analyst 
provided in the budget adopted in July 1992, and to restore 
appropriations to the Board's legal advertising, reproduction, and mail 
services accounts so that the public's right to be fully informed about 
proposed legislation will not be impaired, and to avoid imposing 
excessive fees on members of the public. 

4. The Controller's Office is currently processing the transfer of $47,696 from 
the CATV Fund. The CATV Fund would still have a balance of $99,494 after 
effecting the transfer of $47,696. An additional transfer of $82,304 from the CATV 
Fund would still leave a CATV Fund unappropriated balance of $17,190. 

5. Mr. John Taylor, the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, indicates that the 
proposed ordinance would clarify the Administrative Code regarding the CATV 
Fund year-end balance by deleting the language that requires the automatic 
transfer of the unappropriated balance of funds in the CATV Fund to the General 
Fund. Mr. Taylor states that upon adoption of the proposed ordinance, additional, 
legislation to transfer funds from the CATV Fund to the General Fund will be 
submitted for consideration by the Finance Committee and the full Board of 
Supervisors in order to eliminate the $82,304 balance of budgetary reductions and 
fee increases to the Board's 1992-93 budget. 

Itecom m endation 

Approve the proposed ordinance. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

89 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 9, 1992 



Item 19 -File 172-92-18 



Department: 
Item: 



Description: 



Comments: 



Fire Department 

Resolution authorizing the Fire Department to execute hold 
harmless agreements to hold the manufacturers of jet skis 
harmless from all claims arising out of the use or operation 
of jet skis loaned to the Fire Department. 

The San Francisco retail firm, Your Scooter Shop, that sells 
motorcycles and jet skis, has agreed to loan two jet skis to 
the Fire Department for use in ocean and bay rescue 
operations. 

Your Scooter Shop will loan the jet skis to the Fire 
Department at no charge and with no obligation to 
purchase the jet skis. However, the Fire Department will be 
responsible for routine maintenance and for repairing any 
damage incurred to the jet skis beyond normal wear and 
tear, before returning the jet skis to Your Scooter Shop at 
the end of the loan period. The Fire Department states that 
routine maintenance is minimal and is performed by the 
Firefighters at Station 16, where the jet skis are located. 

The Fire Department has had two jet skis for the last year 
that were on loan from Kawasaki Motors Corp., U.S.A. 

1. The Fire Department reports that although the proposed 
resolution requests authorization to execute hold harmless 
provisions with jet ski manufacturers, the intent of the 
proposed resolution is to authorize execution of a hold 
harmless agreement with only the retail firm of Your 
Scooter Shop. Therefore the proposed resolution should be 
amended to l imi t authorization to execute a hold harmless 
agreement with Your Scooter Shop. 

2. According to the Fire Department, no specific language 
has yet been drafted for the hold harmless agreement. Your 
Scooter Shop has only indicated that a hold harmless 
agreement is required as part of the agreement to loan the 
two jet skis to the Fire Department but has not provided 
specific language for the hold harmless agreement. 

3. Mr. George Riley of the City Attorney's Office is working 
with the Fire Department and Your Scooter Shop to draft 
the appropriate language for the hold harmless agreement. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



90 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 9, 1992 

Recommendations: 1. Amend the proposed resolution to limit the authorization 
to execute a hold harmless agreement to Your Scooter Shop. 

2. Approval of the proposed resolution as amended is a 
policy matter for the Board of Supervisors. 




lairvey M. Rose 



cc: Supervisor Gonzalez 
Supervisor Migden 
Supervisor Hallinan 
President Shelley 
Supervisor Achtenberg 
Supervisor Alioto 
Supervisor Britt 
Supervisor Conroy 
Supervisor Hsieh 
Supervisor Kennedy 
Supervisor Maher 
Clerk of the Board 
Chief Administrative Officer 
Controller 
Jean Mariani 
Barbara Kolesar 
Ted Lakey 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Q1 



Sf 

^q CALENDAR^ 



MEETING OF 

FINANCE COMMITTEE 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 



CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 1992 - 2:00 P.M. ROOM 228, CITY HALL 



PRESENT: SUPERVISORS GONZALEZ, MIGDEN, HALLINAN D0Cl !MPN] TS DEPT. 

DEC 2 2 1992 
ABSENT: SUPERVISOR MIGDEN - ITEM 10 ' w 

SAN FRANCISCO 
CLERK: GAIL JOHNSON PUBLIC LIBRARY 

NOTE: Copies of the Budget Analyst's Report will be available for review on the 
counter in the Office of the Clerk of the Board, Room 235, City Hall, 
10:00 a.m., the date of the meeting. 

CONSENT CALENDAR 

1. All matters listed hereunder constitute a Consent Calendar, are considered to be 
routine by the Finance Committee, and will be acted upon by a single roll call vote 
of the Committee. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a 
member of the Committee or a member of the public so requests, in which event the 
matter shall be removed from the Consent Calendar and considered as a separate 
item. 

(a) File 146-91-4.3 . [AB 75 Capital Outlay Plan] Resolution authorizing 
amendment to the AB 75 Capital Outlay Plan for the City and County of San 
Francisco, as adopted by Resolution No. 125-91, to delete four San Francisco 
DPH/Community Public Health Center Services Projects, to revise nine San 
Francisco DPH/Community Public Services Project budgets, and to authorize 
expenditure of $102,357 of interest earned on non-hospital AB 75 Capital 
Outlay funds for capital improvement projects for San Francisco 
DPH/Community Public Health Services. (Department of Public Health) 

ACTION: Recommended. 

(b) File 150-91-3.1 . [Grant - State Funds] Resolution authorizing Recreation and 
Park Department to accept and expend grant funds in the amount of $150,000 
which includes $10,050 for indirect costs, from the Habitat Conservation Fund 
Program of the California Wildlife Protection Act of 1990 for India Basin 
Wetlands Restoration Phase I Project; companion measure to File 150-91-3. 
(Recreation and Park Department) 

ACTION: Amended. (See file for details.) Recommended as amended. New 
title: "Authorizing Recreation and Park Department to accept 
and expend grant funds in the amount of $150,000 which includes 
$10,050 for indirect costs, from the Habitat Conservation Fund 
Program of the California Wildlife Protection Act of 1990 for 
India Basin Wetlands Restoration Phase I Project; placing $115,000 
on reserve." 



(c) File 25-92-34 . [Contract] Resolution concurring with the Controller's 
certification that Vocational Training and Counseling Services for the 
Independent Living Skills Project can be practically performed at the 
Department of Social Services by private contractor for lower cost than 
similar work services performed by City and County employees. (Department 
of Social Services) 

ACTION: Recommended. 

(d) File 172-92-17 . [Contract] Resolution approving the contract between the 
City and County of San Francisco, Department of Public Health and HHL 
Financial Services, Inc., to provide uncompensated care recovery services. 
(Department of Public Health) 

ACTION: Recommended. 

(e) File 146-92-15.2 . [Release of Funds] Requesting release of reserved funds, 
Department of Public Health, AIDS Office, in the of amount $258,673, for the 
Women's Institute and Marin County, for substance abuse treatment for people 
of color (contractor) Women's Institute for Mental Health/Iris Center and Ark 
of Refuge. (Department of Public Health) 

ACTION: Release of $258,673 recommended. Filed. 

REGULAR CALENDAR 

2. File 97-92-68 . [Colorado Products Ban] Ordinance amending Administrative Code by 
adding Sections 10.240 through 10.247 to prohibit departments of the City and 
County from purchasing any commodities that have been produced or manufactured 
in the State of Colorado; authorizing the Purchaser to establish rules and regulations 
to carry out purposes of ordinance; providing for penalties to ensure compliance with 
the ordinance; requiring the Purchaser to provide implementation reports annually to 
the Board of Supervisors. (Supervisor Britt) 

ACTION: Amendment of the Whole bearing some title, as presented by Supervisor 
Britt, adopted. Further amended. (See file for details.) Recommended 
as amended. New title: "Amending Administrative Code by adding 
Sections 10.240 through 10.247 to prohibit departments of the City and 
County from knowingly purchasing any commodities that have been 
produced or manufactured in the State of Colorado; authorizing the 
Purchaser to establish rules and regulations to carry out purposes of 
ordinance; providing for penalties to ensure compliance with the 
ordinance; requiring the Purchaser to provide implementation reports 
annually to the Board of Supervisors." 

3. File 101-92-16 . [Travel Allowances to Colorado Not Permitted] Ordinance amending 
Ordinance No. 249-92, the Annual Appropriation Ordinance for Fiscal Year 1992-93, 
by adding thereto Section 31, which prohibits the allowance of travel expenses 
incurred in traveling to conventions and meetings in Colorado. (Supervisor Britt) 

ACTION: Recommended. 






4. File 197-92-5 . [Cultural Affairs Task Force Implementation Committee] Ordinance 
constituting the Cultural Affairs Task Force Final Report Committee as the task 
force's implementation committee, with the addition of the Chief Administrative 
Officer or his representative, for the purpose of developing a legislative proposal for 
the creation of a Cultural Equity Endowment Fund Program and for the purpose of 
developing proposals to implement other recommendations of the Cultural Affairs 
Task Force final report. (Supervisor Hallinan) 

(Cont'd from 12/9/92) 

ACTION: Continued to December 30, 1992, meeting. 

5. File 127-92-11 . [Hotel Tax] Ordinance amending the San Francisco Municipal Code, 
Part HI, Section 515 to create a Cultural Equity Endowment Fund by reducing the 
percentage of the Hotel Tax allocated to the Moscone Convention Center, Brooks 
Hall, Civic Auditorium, Convention and Visitors Bureau, War Memorial, Publicity and 
Advertising Fund, and Nonrecurring Events Fund and by capturing a percentage of 
the General Fund, and to provide that at such time as Hotel Tax funds are no longer 
necessary for Candlestick Park as set forth herein, a portion of such funds be 
allocated to the Chief Administrative Officer for certain publicity and advertising 
purposes. (Supervisor Hallinan) 

(Cont'd from 12/9/92) 

ACTION: Continued to December 30, 1992, meeting. 

6. File 127-92-2.1 . [Stadium Operator Admission Tax] Ordinance amending Part IE, 
San Francisco Municipal Code, by amending Section 807 providing an exemption from 
the payment of the stadium operator admission tax, by extending for one year, 
through December 31, 1993, the exemption from the payment of admission taxes on 
tickets sold at $17.99 or less. (Supervisor Alioto) 

ACTION: Hearing held. Continued to January 13, 1993, meeting. 

7. File 101-92-15 . [Government Funding] Ordinance appropriating $37,889, 
Department of Public Health, for permanent salaries, related mandatory fringe 
benefits, other contractual services, auto mileage, travel, training, other current 
services, telephone, materials and supplies, data/word processing equipment 
purchase/lease and reproduction. (Supervisor Alioto) 

(Cont'd from 12/9/92) 

ACTION: Amended. (See file for details.) Recommended as amended. New title: 
"Appropriating $37,634, Department of Public Health, for permanent 
salaries, related mandatory fringe benefits, other contractual services, 
auto mileage, travel, training, other current services, telephone, 
materials and supplies, data/word processing equipment purchase/lease 
and reproduction; placing $7,500 on reserve." 

8. File 102-92-7 . [Public Employment] Ordinance amending Ordinance No. 250-92 
(Annual Salary Ordinance) reflecting the addition of two new positions in the 
Department of Public Health. (Supervisor Alioto) 

(Cont'd from 12/9/92) 

ACTION: Recommended. 



9. File 265-92-1 . [Interactive Media Industry] Resolution declaring it to be the policy 
of the Board of Supervisors to foster the growth of the Interactive Media Industry in 
the San Francisco Bay Area and to take various actions in furtherance of the growth 
of this industry in the San Francisco Bay Area. (Supervisors Gonzalez, Alioto, 
Shelley, Migden) 

(Transferred from Economic and Social Policy Committee 12/8/92 - 
Fiscal Impact) 

ACTION: Amended. (See file for details.) Recommended as amended. 

10. File 100-92-9 . Hearing to consider the City's efforts to secure anticipated revenues 
and fund transfers needed to balance the 1992-93 fiscal year budget for the City and 
County of San Francisco. (Supervisor Gonzalez) 

(Cont'd from 12/2/92) 

ACTION: Hearing held. Filed. 

11. File 161-92-5.1 . [Redevelopment Agency Budget and Bonds] Resolution approving an 
amendment to the budget of the Redevelopment Agency for fiscal year 1992-93. 
(Supervisor Gonzalez) 

(Cont'd from 12/9/92) 

ACTION: Continued to the Call of the Chair. 

12. File 101-92-20 . [Government Funding] Ordinance appropriating $83,277, Sheriff 
Department, for professional services (Family Violence Prevention Fund). 
(Supervisor Achtenberg) 

ACTION: Recommended. 

13. File 97-92-63 . [Cable Television Access Development and Programming Fund) 
Ordinance amending Administrative Code by amending Section 10.117-68, which 
establishes and governs the maintenance of the Cable Television Access 
Development and Programming Fund, by providing for the balance of all funds 
remaining in the fund at the close of each Fiscal Year to be carried forward and 
accumulated in said fund. (Clerk of the Board) 

(Transferred from Administration and Oversight Committee 11/17/92 - 
Fiscal Impact) 

(Cont'd from 12/9/92) 

ACTION: Recommended. 

14. File 97-92-67 . [Board of Supervisors - Fees] Ordinance amending Administrative 
Code by adding Section 8.37 thereto, authorizing the Clerk of the Board of 
Supervisors to collect fees to defray the cost of mailing and providing copies of 
documents relating to the business of the Board of Supervisors. (Clerk of the Board) 

ACTION: Amended. (See file for details.) Recommended as amended. New title: 
"Amending Administrative Code by adding Section 8.37 thereto, 
authorizing the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors to collect fees to 
defray the cost of mailing and providing copies of documents relating to 
the business of the Board of Supervisors, and authorizing the Clerk of the 
Board to waive, in exigent circumstances, the fees authorized by this 
section." 



15. File 28-92-12 . [Emergency Repair] Resolution authorizing the Director of the 
Department of Public Works to take necessary measures to protect the health, 
welfare and property of the citizens of San Francisco by performing the necessary 
work to replace the damaged sidewalks, driveways, tree basins, side sewer vents and 
fencing in areas of heavy pedestrian traffic. (Department of Public Works) 

(Cont'd from 12/9/92) 

ACTION: Recommended. 

16. File 114-92-7 . [Earthquake Safety Program] Ordinance amending the Building 
Code, by amending Section 104(b) to provide that where a building permit application 
is filed on or after January 1, 1992 to repair a City-owned building under the 
Bond-Funded Public Safety Improvement Projects, the building's existing electrical, 
plumbing, mechanical, fire protection or life-safety systems are not required to 
comply with this code if the system complies with the code in effect at the time of 
its construction or installation, the system is safe to continue to operate, and the 
system is not relocated, altered for reuse, or expanded; adopting findings. 
(Department of Public Works) 

(Transferred from Econ. & Social Policy Committee 12/8/92 - Fiscal Impact) 

ACTION: Recommended. 

17. File 51-92-3. Transmitting claims of employees, various departments, for 
reimbursement for personal property damaged and/or stolen in the line of duty. 
(Various) (Cont'd from 12/2/92) 

July, August, September 1992 

ACTION: Hearing held. Resolution prepared in and reported out of Committee 

entitled: "[Reimbursement to Employees] Authorizing reimbursement for 
cost of personal property of City and County employees damaged or 
stolen in the line of duty." Recommended. 

18. File 64-92-24.1 . [Lease of Real Property] Resolution authorizing an amendment to 
an existing lease of real property at 10 United Nations Plaza, Suite 260, for the 
Mayor's Office of Children, Youth and Their Families. (Real Estate Department) 

ACTION: Recommended. 



f 

h 



CITY AND COUNTY 




(PuSCic Library, 'Documents (Dept. 
WFI^C Jane Hudson 



OF SAN FRANCISCO 



yX DOCMMFNTS DEPT. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DEC 18 1992 

BUDGET ANALYST S AN FRANCISCO 

1390 MARKET STREET, SUITE 1025 PUBLIC LIBRARY 

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102 • TELEPHONE (415) 554-7642 

December 14, 1992 



TO: Finance Committee 

FROM: Budget Analyst a /vi^a^^/cas 

SUBJECT: December 16, 1992 Finance Committee Meeting 



Item la -File 146-91 -4.3 

Department: Department of Public Health (DPH) 

Item: Resolution authorizing an amendment to the AB 75 Capital 

Outlay Plan for the City and County of San Francisco, as 
adopted by Resolution 125-91, to delete four San Francisco 
DPH/Community Public Health Center Services Projects, to 
revise nine San Francisco DPH/Community Public Services 
Project budgets, and to authorize expenditure of $102,357 of 
interest earned on non-hospital AB 75 Capital Outlay funds 
for capital improvement projects for San Francisco 
DPH/Community Public Health Services (CPHS). 

Description: The Board of Supervisors previously approved legislation 

(Resolution 125-91) authorizing DPH to adopt the AB 75 
Capital Outlay Plan and authorizing DPH to expend the 
grant allocation of $3,991,643 from the AB 75 Capital Outlay 
Fund for County and private hospital and non-hospital 
capital outlay purposes, including facility repairs, 
renovation, remodeling, expansion, acquisition and 
equipment needs. The State requires that no less than 67 
percent of the funds be allocated to hospitals and no more 
than 33 percent be allocated to non-hospital facilities, 
including outpatient clinics, mental health facilities, public 
health clinics, and community or free clinics. 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 16, 1992 

On February 4, 1991, the Board of Supervisors approved 
Resolution 125-91 granting permission to submit the San 
Francisco's AB 75 Capital Outlay Plan which included 13 
CPHS projects totaling $963,263 and to expend grant funds 
from the AB 75 Capital Outlay Fund of the State for capital 
improvement projects. DPH proposes to amend a section of 
the City's AB 75 Capital Outlay Plan to delete four of the 13 
projects and revise the remaining nine project budgets. 

The proposed resolution would authorize these amendments 
to the City's AB 75 Capital Outlay Plan. In addition, the 
Department is requesting authorization to spend $102,357 of 
interest earnings on non-hospital AB 75 Capital Outlay funds 
to expand and renovate clinic space at the Tom Waddell 
Clinic. 

Comment: Attached is a summary of the proposed deleted and revised 

projects as submitted by DPH. 

Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

2 



Attachment 



SUMMARY OF DELETED AND REVISED PROJECTS 



Project 

#1 HVAC System (HC #1 ) 

#2 Exam Rooms (HC #1) 

#3 HVAC System (HC #2) 

#4 Fire Alarm System 

#5 Supply Transport-Dumbwaiter 

Replacement (HC #2) 
#6 HVAC System (HC #3) 
#7 Expand Clinic Space (HC #4) 
#8 Exam Rooms (2) (HC #5) 
#9 Supply Transport-Dumbwaiter 

Replacement (HC #5) 
#10 Public Health Satellite 

Clinic (YGC) 
#11 Telephone Conversion At 

Health Centers 
#12 MIS Patient Records 

(Administration) 
#13 Expand/Renovate Clinic Space 

(Tom Waddell Clinic) 

Total 



Previous 

Budget 



73,424 
60,000 
52,305 
17,000 
24,000 

52,305 

7,400 
40,000 
24,000 



$ 60,000 
3260,000 
$210,079 



Revised Reason For 
Budget Deletion/Change 

$ 97,000 Revised estimated costs. 
$ 85,000 Revised estimated costs. 
$ 42,000 Revised estimated costs. 
S No longer a priority. 
$ Repaired; replacement not 

needed. 
$ 26,000 Revised estimated costs. 
S 9,000 Revised estimated costs. 
S 70,000 Revised estimated costs. 
$ Repaired; replacement not 

needed. 
$119,000 Remodel newly-acquired 

building. 
5430,000 Revised estimated costs. 



Completed with other 
funds. 
$ 82,750 S 85,263 Departmental priority; 

revised estimated costs. 



$965,263 $963,263 



NOTE : Interest earned on non-hospital funds through 05-31-92 totaling 
$102,357.00 will be added to Project #13 for a total of $187,620.00 of AB 75 
Capital Outlay funds used for Project #13. 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 16, 1992 

Item lb -File 150-91-3.1 



Department 
Item: 



Grant Amount: 
Grant Period: 
Source of Funds 

Project: 
Description: 



Required Match: 



Project Budget 



Recreation and Park Department 

Resolution authorizing the Recreation and Park Department 
to accept and expend grant funds, including $10,050 in 
indirect costs, for India Basin Wetlands Restoration Phase I 
Project. 

$150,000 

January 1, 1993 through June 30, 1997 

Habitat Conservation Fund, California Department of Parks 
and Recreation 

India Basin Wetlands Restoration, Phase I 

The State has enacted the California Wildlife Protection Act 
of 1990, which provides funds to the State of California for 
grants to local agencies to acquire and/or develop facilities for 
public recreational and fish and wildlife habitat protection 
purposes. The proposed grant funds would be used for Phase 
I of the India Basin Wetlands Restoration Project. Phase I of 
the proposed project would include the removal of submerged 
debris and scuttled vessels which have been dumped and 
abandoned at the water's edge. Phase II of the proposed 
project, which the Recreation and Park Department would 
begin upon the completion of Phase I in FY 1992-93, would 
include landscaping of inland areas and restoration of 
wetland and shoreline habitats. 

The India Basin land was purchased with funds from the 
Open Space Fund and is the only Bay shore land held by the 
Recreation and Park Department. The India Basin land is 
located in the area of Innes Avenue and Hunters Point 
Boulevard. It has been used for years as a dumping ground 
and squatters' settlement, and has several barges and other 
vessels, both beached and submerged, which must be 
removed prior to restoring the wildlife and vegetative habitats 
desired in Bay wetlands. 

$150,000 available through previously appropriated FY 1990- 
91 Open Space funding (See Comment #2). 



Contractual Services 
Beach and Underwater Clean-up 
Removal of Barges and/or Dredging 
Total Contractual Services 



$100,000 

100.000 

$200,000 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 16, 1992 



Indirect Costs: 
Comments: 



Contingency 

Approximately 15 percent of Contractual Services $30,000 



50,000 

&2§0_ 

$ 59,950 

10.050 
$300,000 



DPW Work Order 

Engineering, Architectural and Inspection 
Construction Management 
Total DPW Work Order 

Indirect Costs 
Total Project 

$10,050 or 6.7 percent of the total proposed grant funds of 
$150,000. 

1. As noted above, $150,000 in required matching funds 
would come from the FY 1990-91 Open Space Fund allocation. 
The proposed $150,000 in matching fund was allocated 
specifically for the India Basin Wetlands Restoration project. 

2. According to Ms. Elaine Molinari of the Recreation and 
Park Department, the contractors which would be used for 
the Beach and Underwater Clean-up and for the Removal of 
Barges and/or Dredging, have not yet been selected. 
Therefore, a total of $115,000 of the proposed grant funds 
should be reserved, consisting of $100,000 budgeted for 
Contractual Services and $15,000 budgeted for contingencies, 
pending the selection of contractors, the MBE, WBE status of 
the contractors and finalized cost details. 

3. The $59,950 budgeted for DPW Work Orders would be used 
for DPW personnel to perform engineering, architectural 
and inspection services during Phase I of the project, which 
includes the removal of debris and any submerged vessels. 

4. The Disability Access Checklist is in the file. 

5. Attached is the "Summary of Grant Request" form. 

Recommendations: 1. Amend the proposed resolution to reserve a total of 
$115,000 for Contractual Services and related Contingencies, 
pending the selection of contractors, the MBE, WBE status of 
the contractors and finalized cost details. 

2. Approve the proposed resolution as amended. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Rev. 4/10/90 



[ tcm' No. ; . . - Summary of Grant Request 

~ rar(or CA Dept of Parks Division Recreation & Park Dept . 

"ontact Person Section 

Address : Contact Person P^l Arnold 



Telephone 



666-7080 



Amount Requested S j^O . 000 Application Deadline 

rerm: From To Notification Expected 

Health Commission Board of Supervlsorsr Finance Committee 

Full Board 



f. Item Description; Request to (apply for) (accept and expend) a (new) (continuation) (allocation) (augmentation to a) 
g** *'" »"" • • ""'0 grant in theamount of $ 150,000 from the period of 1/93 to 6/97 

to provide Restoration of Wetlands services 

1 L Summ3rY. (C— CM|fhiiaqC—oJ«J &cwo^ — A i. r ♦ f/ m m pt •er>«J; w cc tit M* «od provider* ) 

The proposed grant funds would be used to clear debris, submerged 
vessels and vehicles trom shoreline recreation. area at India Basin, 
with the clearing and grading of the shore, natural wetland habitats 



[II. Outcomes/Obfectives; 

Restoration of Wela-nds 



V. Effects of Reduction or Terminat ion of These Funds; 



V. Financial Information: 

Col. A Col. B Col. C Col. D Req. Match Approved by 

Two Years Ago Past Yeat/Orig. Proposed Change 

Grant Amount __ _____ $150,000 $150,000 

Personnel 



Equipment 

Contract Svc. 200,000 

Mat. & Supp. 

Facilities/Space ; 

Other 89,950 

[ndirect Costs 10,050 

pL Data Processing 

(co*a md tid e d above) 

<LLL Personnel 

=7T CSC 

VT CSC 

Contractual 



^ourcc(s) of non-grant funding for salaries of CSC employees working part-time on this grant: 
Vill grant funded employees be retained after this grant terminates? If so, How? 

N/A 

V HI. Contractual Services; Open Bid X So)e Source M«*.~— ..a~k*«« r «««»E» 



memo to finance committee 
December 16, 1992 



Item lc - File 25-92-34 



Department 

Item: 



Services to be 
Performed: 



Description: 



Department of Social Services (DSS) 

Resolution concurring with the Controller's certification 
that Vocational Training and Educational Counseling 
Services for the Independent Living Skills Project can be 
practically performed by a private contractor for lower cost 
than similar work services performed by City and County 
employees. 



Employment and Vocational Services would be provided to 
approximately 80 to 100 adolescents (ages 16-19) who are 
participants in the Independent Living Skills Project. These 
services include employment and vocational counseling, 
training to prepare for job application, and assistance in 
finding internship positions and other job opportunities. 

The Controller has determined that contracting for 
Vocational and Educational Counseling Services at the 
Department of Social Services in fiscal year 1992-93 would 
result in estimated savings as follows: 



Citv Operated Service Costs 

Salaries 
Fringe Benefits 

Total 

Contracted Service Costs 

Estimated Savings 



Lowest 

Salary 

Step 


Highest 

Salary 

Step 


$40,668 
9.354 


$48,128 
11,069 


$50,022 


$59,197 


46.300 


46.300 


$3,722 


$12,897 



Comments: 



1. According to the Department of Social Services, 
Vocational and Educational Counseling Services were first 
certified as required by Charter Section 8.300-1 in 1989 and 
have continued to be provided by an outside contractor since 
then. 

2. The proposed one-year contract, which is with Ms. 
Sherry Tennyson, would be retroactive to October 1, 1992, 
and would expire September 30, 1993. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

7 






■ 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 16, 1992 



3. Fiscal year 1992-93 is Ms. Tennyson's fourth year of 
providing counseling services to the Department of Social 
Services. According to the Department, Ms. Tennyson is a 
women-owned and minority-owned business enterprise. 

4. The Department of Social Services advises that this 
contract would be funded by Federal Title rV monies and 
the funder requires that the contract be bid competitively 
each year. According to the Department, Ms. Tennyson was 
the lowest bidder and she had more experience than the 
other bidders. 

5. The Controller's supplemental questionnaire with the 
Department's responses, including the MBE/WBE status of 
this contract, is attached. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



12/08/62 14:34 ©415 554 7568 SPECIAL PROJECTS -.-- HARVEY M ROSE 



CHARTER 8.300-1 PROPOSITION J QUESTIONAIRE 

DEPARTMEN T: 45 Social Services For Time period 10/1/92 to 9/30/93 
CONTRACT SERVICES Vocational and counseling Services, ILS Program 

1. Who performed services prior to contracting out? 

Service has been contracted out since program was established- It 
has never been performed by City and County employees. 

2. Number of City employees laid off as result of contracting out? 

None . 

3. Explain disposition of employees if they were not laid off? 
Not applicable. Employees had not performed service. 

4. What percent of a City employee's time is spent on services to be 
contracted out. 

None. 

5. How long have the services been contracted out? 
4 years. 

6. What was the first fiscal year for a Proposition J certifciation? 
1989-1990 

7. How will contract services meet the goals of your MBE/WBE Action 
Plan. 

It will conform with the plan. RFQ has been conducted. 



XJa^J^ /See? 



David Rees, Contract Manager 
Department Representative 



557-5585 



Telephone Number 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 16, 1992 

Item Id - File 172-92-17 

Department Department of Public Health (DPH) 

Item: Resolution approving the contract between the Department of 

Public Health and HHL Financial Services, Inc. to provide 
uncompensated care recovery services. 

Description: The DPH, through its Request for Proposal (RFP) process, 

recently selected HHL Financial Services to provide 
uncompensated care recovery services. These services 
include (1) assisting uninsured, indigent individuals, 
referred by San Francisco General Hospital, to qualify for 
MediCal and/or other program benefits (i.e., Victims of 
Crime program), and (2) assisting patients and the Hospital 
with third party liability cases (i.e., auto accident cases) and 
Workers Compensation. Specifically, HHL Financial Services 
would assist individuals, who are potentially eligible for 
benefits but are difficult to qualify, to fill out MediCal and/or 
other program forms and to gather necessary 
documentation. HHL Financial Services would also 
represent MediCal applicants in appeals if an application is 
denied. 

Under the terms of the proposed contract, HHL Financial 
Services would receive 24 percent of the first $2 million 
recovered from MediCal, other programs, and liability cases, 
22 percent of these funds recovered between $2 million to $4 
million, and 20 percent of these funds recovered over $4 
million. This represents a change from the current contract 
which provides that the contractor receives 25 percent of all 
funds recovered from MediCal, other programs, and liability 
cases. 

Comments: 1. Mr. Gordon Choy of the DPH, Contract Office reports that 

the Department received only one qualified proposal, which 
was from HHL Financial Services, in response to its RFP. 
According to Mr. Choy, a second proposal was received by the 
Department two days after the official deadline for the 
submission of proposals and therefore did not qualify as a 
responsive bid. Mr. Choy advises that the RFP was advertised 
in the San Francisco Chronicle, the San Francisco 
Examiner, the Asian Week, the Sun Reporter and the El 
Mundo newspapers. As noted above, HHL Financial 
Services, which is neither an MBE or a WBE firm, was 
selected as the qualified bidder. HHL Financial Services is 
the current contractor for these services and has been 
providing these services to the City since 1988. The proposed 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

10 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 16, 1992 



four year contract would commence January 1, 1993 and 
expire December 31, 1996. 

2. Ms. Sharon Kennison of the DPH reports that in FY 1991- 
92, HHL Financial Services recovered $3,294,771 from 
MediCal, other programs, and liability cases. Of the 
$3,294,771, 25 percent or $823,693 was paid to HHL Financial 
Services and $2,471,078 or 75 percent accrued to the City. Ms. 
Kennison advises that as of November, 1992, HHL Financial 
Services has recovered $951,703 in FY 1992-93 from MediCal, 
other programs, and liability cases. 

3. Under the proposed new contract Ms. Kennison estimates 
that for FY 1993-94 the City would realize an estimated $3.3 
million for these services and HHL Financial Services would 
earn an estimated $766,000. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

11 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 16, 1992 



Item le - File 146-92-15.2 



Department: Department of Public Health (DPH) 

Aids Office 



Item: 



Amount: 



Source of Funds: 



Description 



Release of reserved funds for the Department of Public 
Health, Aids Office, in the amount of $258,673, for the 
Women's Institute for Mental Health/Iris Center and for a 
grant to Marin County, for substance abuse treatment. 

$258,673 

U. S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), 
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA). 

The Board of Supervisors previously authorized the DPH to 
accept and expend a continuation of the Ryan White 
Comprehensive AIDS Resources Emergency Disaster Relief 
Grant (CARE/Title I Supplemental) of $14,661,192 from the 
Federal Department of Health and Human Resources. 
However, the Finance Committee reserved a total of 
$1,270,000 earmarked for contractual services, pending the 
selection of contractors, information regarding contract 
budget details, and the MBE/WBE status of the contractors. 
These grant funds provide assistance to localities that are 
disproportionately affected by the AIDS epidemic. The 
Finance Committee previously released $200,529 of the 
$1,270,000 in reserve funds, leaving a balance of $1,069,471 
still on reserve. 

Mr. Tim Piland of the DPH reports that the Department 
erroneously requested the release of reserve funds for the 
grant for Marin County. According to Mr. Piland, the HRSA 
did not allocate monies to Marin County for 1993-92, due to a 
reduction in CARE/Title I Supplemental funds. The $258,673 
requested for release from reserve is designated for the 
Women's Institute of Mental Health only. 

The Women's Institute of Mental Health, a non-profit 
agency, in collaboration with the Ark of Refuge, also a non- 
profit agency, would establish a dual-diagnosis residence for 
African American women with HIV disease and active 
chemical dependency. Project services would be provided to 
four to six program clients at a time and would include 
permanent housing, meals, and HIV support services in 
conjunction with a long-term substance abuse recovery 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

12 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 16, 1992 



program. The project budget in the amount of $258,673, is 
detailed below: 



Personnel 

Executive Director 
Associate Director 
Counseling Services Director 
HIV Coordinator 
Administrative Coordinator 
HIV Recovery Counselor 
Outreach Worker 
Administrative Assistant 

Subtotal Salaries 
Fringe Benefits 

Operating Expenses 

Administration: 



FTE 



.04 


$1,500 




.06 


2,400 




.04 


1,200 




.06 


2,000 




.05 


1,250 




.58 


15,400 




.67 


15,200 




,22 


8,400 




1.83 




$47,350 
13,258 



Office Furnishing and Equipment 


$2,800 




Office Supplies 


600 




Printing 


1,000 




Staff Mileage 


80 




Insurance 


2,500 




Staff Training 


500 




Housing Costs: 






Personnel 


89,626 




Rent 


25,000 




Client Costs (i. e., meals, Transportation) 


7,066 




Utilities 


1,800 




Supplies 


900 




Furniture/Equipment 


18,120 




Renovation and Repairs 


17,450 




Other Costs 


4,105 




Consultants 


5,160 




Subtotal Operating Expenses 




176,707 


Administration Overhead 




21.358 


Total 




$258,673 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

13 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 16, 1992 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed release of reserved funds in the 
amount of $258,673. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

14 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 16, 1992 

Items 2 and 3 - Files 97-92-68 and 101-92-16 



Item: 



Description: 



Ordinance amending the San Francisco Administrative 
Code, Chapter 10, by adding Article XXI, Sections 10.240 
through 10.247, to prohibit departments of the City and 
County from purchasing any commodities that have been 
produced or manufactured in the State of Colorado; 
authorizing the Purchaser to establish rules and regulations 
to carry out purposes of the ordinance; providing for penalties 
to ensure compliance with the ordinance; and requiring the 
Purchaser to provide implementation reports annually to the 
Board of Supervisors (File 97-92-68) 

Ordinance amending Ordinance No. 249-92, the 
administrative provisions of the Annual Appropriation 
Ordinance for Fiscal Year 1992-93, by adding Section 31, 
which prohibits the allowance of travel expenses incurred in 
traveling to conventions and meetings in Colorado. 

In November, 1992, the citizens of Colorado approved a State 
Constitutional Amendment, known as Amendment 2, which 
repealed local anti-discrimination ordinances in the Cities of 
Aspen, Boulder, ^uid Denver, and which prohibits the State of 
Colorado and any department, agency, political subdivision, 
municipality or school district in Colorado from enacting or 
enforcing any law, regulation, or policy which prohibits 
discrimination on the basis of gay, lesbian, or bisexual 
orientation. 

The two proposed ordinances have been submitted in 
response to Colorado's passage of Amendment 2. The first 
proposed ordinance (File 97-92-68) would amend the San 
Francisco Administrative Code to prohibit City Departments 
from purchasing any commodities that have been produced 
or manufactured in the State of Colorado, authorize the 
Purchaser to establish rules and regulations to carry out the 
provisions of the proposed ordinance, provide for penalties for 
non-compliance, and require the Purchaser to provide 
annual implementation reports to the Board of Supervisors 
concerning the prohibition on purchases of Colorado 
commodities. 

The ordinance would require that the Purchaser or other 
contracting officer of the City obtain a declaration under 
penalty of perjury that the commodities offered under a 
proposed contract have not been purchased or manufactured 
in Colorado. The prohibition would not apply to contracts 
entered into prior to the effective date of the ordinance, 
contracts valued at less than $5,000, any contract in which 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

15 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 16, 1992 

the City would incur a financial loss which the contracting 
office believes would violate his or her fiduciary duties to the 
City, or where the requirements of the proposed ordinance 
are inconsistent with the terms and conditions of a grant, 
subvention, or contract with the State or Federal 
governments. 

The Purchaser or any other City official responsible for 
procuring goods and services would be required to 
promulgate rules and regulations to enforce the proposed 
ordinance. 

The failure of a contractor to comply with the proposed 
ordinance would be deemed a material breach of contract. If 
the declaration submitted by the contractor, attesting that the 
purchased commodities were not produced or manufactured 
in Colorado, is found to be false, the City would be authorized 
to impose any sanction designed to ensure compliance, 
which could include 1) refusing to award a contract, 2) 
ordering that a contract be suspended, 3) withholding funds, 
4) ordering that the contract be revised based on a material 
breach of contract, 5) disqualification of a bidder or contractor 
from further consideration for a period up to five years, with 
a right to review and reconsideration after two years if 
corrective action is taken. 

The proposed ordinance further provides that if a contractor 
fails to comply in good faith with the provisions of the 
proposed ordinance, the contractor would be liable for 
liquidated damages for each violation, equal to 1) the bidder 
or contractor's net profit under the contract, 2) 10 percent of 
the total amount of the contract, or 3) a penalty of $1,000, 
whichever is greatest. 

The Purchaser would be required to submit an 
implementation report to the Board of Supervisors one year 
after the effective date of the ordinance. 

The second proposed ordinance (File 101-92-16) would amend 
the 1992-93 annual appropriation ordinance to prohibit the 
allowance of travel expenses incurred by City employees in 
traveling to conventions and meetings in Colorado. 
Specifically, the ordinance provides that, after January 7, 
1993, no allowance would be made for expenses incurred in 
traveling to conventions and meetings in Colorado. 

Comments: 1. Mr. Ara Manasian of the Purchasing Department states 

that he has requested Mr. Harold Guetersloh of the 
Controller's Office to generate a computer listing of firms 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

16 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 16, 1992 



providing goods and services to the City whose addresses, for 
the remittance of payments by the City, are in the State of 
Colorado. As of the writing of this report, the list of 
businesses with Colorado addresses was not available for 
review by the Budget Analyst. 

2. Mr. Manasian also states that the requirement that each 
bidder and contractor submit a declaration, attesting that the 
commodities to be procured by the City were not produced or 
manufactured in Colorado, would generate "thousands of 
additional documents" for review by the Purchasing 
Department, and could require the Purchasing Department 
"to throw out certain bids or investigate the declarations" 
submitted by bidders and contractors. 

Mr. Manasian states that the Purchasing Department 
therefore recommends that the prohibition on the purchase of 
Colorado commodities be imposed as a bid condition, whereby 
bidders would be required to submit a statement, together 
with their bid, that to the best of their knowledge the 
commodities supplied were or were not produced or 
manufactured in Colorado. 

3. Mr. Manasian also states that implementation of the 
proposed ordinance prohibiting the purchase of Colorado 
commodities (File 97-92-68), would be difficult because many 
distributors do not know where the commodities they 
distribute were actually produced. As an example, Mr. 
Manasian states that the City's office supplies are procured 
under a contract with the Boise-Cascade company. This 
contract was awarded through a competitive bidding process, 
but the City's office supplies are ordered as needed from the 
Boise-Cascade office supply catalogue. The catalogue 
contains hundreds of different types of office supplies, and 
Boise Cascade is unlikely to be able to attest which supplies 
were manufactured in Colorado, according to Mr. Manasian. 
For the same reason, Mr. Manasian indicates that it would 
also be very difficult for City employees to determine whether 
each of these items was produced or manufactured in 
Colorado. 

4. It should be noted that much of Colorado's economy is 
centered in the Cities of Aspen, Boulder, and Denver. 
Amendment 2 was rejected by a majority of voters in these 
cities, and each of these Cities enacted local ordinances 
prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation 
several years ago (Aspen's ordinance was passed in 1977). 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

17 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 16, 1992 



According to Mr. Tom Watson of the Gay and Lesbian 
Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) Chapter in Denver, 
which supports the proposal to prohibit the City's purchases 
of Colorado commodities, the campaign in support of 
Amendment 2 was organized largely by membership 
organizations headquartered in Colorado Springs. 

Statewide, 53.4 percent of Colorado voters supported 
Amendment 2 and 46.6 percent opposed the amendment. 
The following table presents the electoral returns for 
Amendment 2 for Colorado's largest counties. The counties 
in which the amendment was rejected by a majority of voters 
are shown in bold: 







Outcome by 


County 


Countv 


Countv Seat Pet. In Favor 


Pet. Omoosed 


Adams 


Brighton 


54.4 


45.6 


Arapahoe 


Littleton 


54.8 


45.2 


Boulder 


Boulder 


39.6 


61.4 


Denver 


Denver 


40.0 


60.0 


El Paso 


Colorado Springs 


65.9 


34.1 


Jefferson 


Golden 


55.1 


44.9 


Larimer 


Fort Collins 


53.8 


46.2 


Mesa 


Grand Junction 


55.6 


44.4 


Pitkin 


Aspen 


28.1 


71.9 



Recommendation: 



According to the election returns, approximately 33 percent 
of all votes cast on Amendment 2 were cast by residents of the 
metropolitan areas surrounding Boulder, Denver, Aspen, 
and Colorado Springs, while the remaining votes were cast 
in smaller counties. 

5. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the principal 
industries in the State of Colorado include manufacturing, 
tourism, aerospace, and electronics equipment. Apart from 
their very large service sectors, Denver relies mostly on retail 
sales, transportation, and utilities; Boulder relies primarily 
on manufacturing, especially industrial machinery and 
instrumentation; and Colorado Springs relies most heavily 
on retail sales and manufacturing, especially electronics 
equipment, industrial machinery, instrumentation, and 
fabricated metal. 

Approval of the proposed ordinances is a policy matter for the 
Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SI JPERVLSORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

18 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 16, 1992 

Items 4 and 5 - File 197-92-5 and 127-92-1 1 

1. File 197-92-5 The proposed resolution would constitute the Cultural 
Affairs Task Force Final Report Committee as the Task Force's Implementation 
Committee, with the addition of the CAO or his representative, for the purpose of 
developing a legislative proposal for the creation of a Cultural Equity Endowment 
Fund Program and for the purpose of developing proposals to implement other 
recommendations of the Cultural Affairs Task Force final report. 

File 127-92-11 The proposed ordinance would amend the San Francisco 
Municipal Code, Part III, Section 515 to create a special fund to be known as the 
Cultural Equity Endowment Fund by reducing the percentage of the Hotel Tax 
allocated to the Moscone Convention Center, Brooks Hall, Civic Auditorium, 
Convention and Visitors Bureau, War Memorial, Publicity and Advertising Fund, 
Nonrecurring Events Fund and by capturing a percentage of the General Fund 
and to provide that at such time as Hotel Tax Funds are no longer necessary for 
Candlestick Park as set forth under the proposed ordinance, a portion of such 
funds would be allocated to the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) for certain 
publicity and advertising purposes. 

2. On October 28, 1992 the Finance Committee held a hearing to consider the 
Cultural Affairs Task Force Final Report. As a result of this hearing, the Finance 
Committee requested the City Attorney to prepare legislation to effect changes in 
the distribution of Hotel Tax revenues and to enpanel a committee to implement 
the recommendations of the Cultural Affairs Task Force. These two items would 
1) effect changes in the distribution of Hotel Tax revenues, and 2) constitute the 
Cultural Affairs Task Force Final Report Committee as the Task Force's 
Implementation Committee. 

3. According to Mr. John Kreidler of the San Francisco Foundation, a 
private nonprofit foundation, and a member of the Task Force, the Cultural 
Affairs Task Force was formed, in part, in response to criticism of the Grants for 
the Arts (GFTA) program by certain members of the arts community. Mr. 
Kreidler advises that some members of the arts community believed that GFTA 
funds could be distributed more equitably because: (1) some organizations of 
comparable size received substantially different grant amounts; and (2) large arts 
organizations, such as the Exploratorium, the Symphony, the Opera, the Ballet 
and ACT, by virtue of their size, received a disproportionate amount of GFTA's 
total funds. These large arts organizations are all Western European in their 
derivation, leading to allegations that the distribution of GFTA funds was racist. 
According to Mr. Kreidler, certain GFTA critics believed that funds should be 
redistributed, not based on size, but based on parity with the racial make-up of 
San Francisco. Under this distribution, if eight percent of San Francisco's 
population is African American, then eight percent of GFrA funds should be 
allocated to African American arts organizations. 

4. The Task Force's report recommends that a second grant fund be 
established to correct the perceived racial and cultural inequities of Grants for the 
Arts. The proposed ordinance (File 127-92-11) would establish a special fund, 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

19 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 16, 1992 

called the Cultural Equity Endowment Fund, which would focus on the following 
four priorities: 

a. Cultural Equity Initiatives; 

b. Contracts for artwork to individual creative artists in all disciplines; 

c. Project grants to small and midsize arts organizations; and 

d. Faculties acquisition program, or Artspace Initiative. 

5. Unlike GFTA, grants from the Cultural Equity Endowment Fund would 
be made on a competitive basis. Such grants would not act as a subsidy, because 
grants would not necessarily be on-going. Instead, the Cultural Equity 
Endowment Fund would make purposeful investments for smaller arts groups 
which are representative of minority cultures, Mr. Kreidler reports. For example, 
a group might receive a sum of money to support start-up costs, or to market their 
work for a limited time. Organizations that receive Cultural Equity Endowment 
funds would not be ineligible to receive GFTA on-going grants in addition to the 
competitive grant received from the Cultural Equity Endowment. 

6. File 127-92-11 would amend the City's Municipal Code to allocate one 
percent of the total Hotel Tax Fund in FY 1993-94 and to allocate 1.5 percent in FY 
1994-95 and two percent in FY 1995-96 to the Cultural Equity Endowment Fund. 
The attached table demonstrates the impact of the proposed allocation to the 
current fund recipients of the Hotel Tax revenues. As noted in the attached table, 
under the proposed legislation, in FY 1993-94 the Unallocated General Fund 
would be reduced by $309,809 and Special Contingencies ( publicity and 
advertising for special parades, celebrations, street fairs and unforeseen special 
contingencies) would be reduced by approximately $146,136. Each of the 
remaining affected organizations would be reduced by $32,150. 

7. As noted on the attached table, the proposed Cultural Equity Endowment 
Fund is targeted to consist of 1.0 percent and 1.5 percent of Hotel Tax funds during 
the first and second years, respectively, and two percent of Hotel Tax funds 
thereafter. The Task Force's report assumes that the Cultural Equity Endowment 
Fund would commence in 1993-94, and that Hotel Tax revenues would increase by 
five percent annually. Based on these assumptions, and based on FY 1992-93 
estimated Hotel Tax revenues of $55,671,000 in 1992-93 generated from the basic 8 
percent Hotel Tax rate, the Budget Analyst estimates that the total dollar amount 
of the Cultural Equity Endowment Fund would be as follows: 

• $584,546 in FY 1993-94 (one percent of the current estimated revenues 
plus a five percent increase); 

• $920,659 in FY 1994-95 (1.5 percent of the estimated FY 1993-94 revenues 
plus a five percent increase); and 



BOARD OF ST JPERVLSORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

20 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 16, 1992 

• $1,287,634 in FY 1995-96 (two percent of estimated FY 1994-95 total 
revenues plus a five percent increase. The Cultural Equity Endowment 
would consist of this two percent of Hotel Tax revenues in perpetuity; the 
estimated dollar amount would vary in future years based on the dollar 
amount of Hotel Tax revenues. 

8. The Budget Analyst notes that Hotel Tax revenues will not necessarily 
increase by five percent per year. Hotel Tax revenues are paid by tourists, and 
tourism generally declines during economic downturns and increases during 
upturns. A five percent annual increase is higher than the current rate of 
inflation. Thus, an assumption that Hotel Tax revenues will increase 5 percent 
per year assumes that either the number of tourists staying in hotels or the rates 
charged by such hotels will increase in future years, an assumption that may not 
be realized depending on economic conditions. Historically, the 8 percent of the 
total 11 percent Hotel Tax has generated the following actual revenues: 



FY 


Amount 


Percent Increase 


1987-88 


$44,357,994 


n/a 


198&89 


48,810,018 


10.0 % 


1989-90 


46,120,913 


(5.5) 


1990-91 


50,588,835 


9.7 


1991-92 


52,389,209 


3.6 



As demonstrated by actual revenues over the past five years, Hotel Tax 
revenues are inconsistent. In 1989-90, Hotel Tax revenues actually decreased 5.5 
percent from the prior year. Most recently, revenues were less than the 5 percent 
annual increase estimated by the Task Force. 

9. The Task Force estimates that the dollar amount allocated to the five 
organizations which would receive a reduction in the percentage of the Hotel Tax 
funds would not decrease, because the Task Force anticipates that Hotel Tax 
revenues will increase 5 percent per year in 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96. Instead, 
the Cultural Equity Endowment funds would come from a reduction in future 
increases. Assuming the five percent annual increase in Hotel Tax revenues 
included in the Task Force's report is correct, the Budget Analyst concurs that 
each of the five organizations would receive increases in the dollar amount of 
their Hotel Tax revenues. However, the Budget Analyst notes that if the dollar 
amount of Hotel Tax funds allocated to these organizations does not increase over 
time, the value of the amount allocated to these organizations would decrease 
because of the value of a dollar decreases over time due to inflation. In other 
words, expenses for these organizations would go up due to inflation, but if their 
anticipated revenue increase was allocated to the Cultural Equity Endowment 
Fund, the organizations would need to identify areas for expenditure reductions. 

10. According to Ms. Joanne Chow Winship, Director of the Arts 
Commission, the Arts Commission or the Grants for the Arts were both 
recommended as the agency to administer the Cultural Equity Endowment Fund. 
According to Ms. Winship, the proposed Task Force's Implementation Committee 
(File 197-92-5) would decide which agency would administer the proposed 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

21 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 16, 1992 

Cultural Equity Endowment Program. Ms. Winship advises that because of the 
nature of the proposed Cultural Equity Endowment Fund, the Endowment would 
be expensive to administer. According to Ms. Winship, the Task Force envisioned 
a decision-making process involving a great deal of public input. In addition, 
grants to individual artists, which would include sample artwork, require that 
applications be inventoried and artwork be returned. These activities increase 
costs, so that approximately 20 percent of the Cultural Equity Endowment Fund 
would be required to support administrative costs, Ms. Winship estimates. 

11. In addition to deciding which agency would be responsible for 
administering the proposed Cultural Equity Endowment Program, the proposed 
Task Force's Implementation Committee (File 197-92-5) would develop proposals 
to implement other recommendations of the Cultural Affairs Task Force's final 
report. 

Recommendation 

The proposed ordinance and resolution are policy matters for the Board of 

Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

22 







^^, ^ ^^ ^ „ 







■ 
o 




ssssoioogio 

5 tT 1 TT r- C\l 

CO 00 CO 00 *— _ ^~_ 


3S 






co to 




£ 




o" o" o" o" -- w 


^ r~T 






-;^ 52 S 


00 CO 




o 




CM CM 




3= 




j^ _- — _ — 


^-" ,-" 




Q 




ftl NN(OintOU)ION 


r>- _ 






«■ 


2Jcocotog>'-cj>o>r~- 
2 . - •*; - *"" - ~°- < °- 

,_- "9 CO" CNj" ^" •" V CO" 0C» 
JKcOCOCM'-tO'-COCO 


§ 3 


U3 


S S 


ttf 


Jg co_ co_ to o. •- o. •»_ co 


"^ CM 




S £ 


CO 


- to to" o" V <•" V 

CM *" 


co - 


to 
(A 


>- 
u. 


« 


















* s 




COCOCOCOCOIOCOCDO 


gg 


5? 
o 


as 




COCDCOCOCMCMCMCOtO 


o o 


o 




-^ d d co" id d co to" d 


CO CM 


8 










8 


• 




•"•SS^ocoooo 
oo co co co ■**■ oo 


a> o> 


u 




io_ uo io_ io_ ■» <© 


CO CO 


CO 


c 
c 




o" o* o~ o" co" • 


d d 


CM 




rs.r-~.r-r-. io oo 
t£-~~— - ^ 5. 


CM CM 


c 




a> co 


OJ 


£ 








CM 










a> 


Q 




— ■»*ris.*-co»u>v 




cm" 






oo *~- *". 0D - °°- * •. * *! 




"£ 




aa 


CO CO 


CM 


S 1 _ 


CM 


- rC rs." to" co" co" co" op" oo 

;>COlOlOCMIOCMCOCO 


to" d 


N." 


5 2 


co 


^ o. q o co •- q n to 


ss 


CO 


2, o 

O* i_ 

o> ^ 


- to" to" o" co" co •» 


o"*» 






eg *~ 


CO 


ID 




to 


M 


«» 


(A 


fc 


<• 


















"§ s 




oi&Siffloonmo 


gg 


S 5 

o 




OOoaoDCOCMCNJCNJ-r-tO 


io <et 


o 




*- a* cj) to" to o co" r^ o 


oo" T^ 


d 


s* 




•0- «- 


at 


o 


e 




S" ©" o" S" o coo S" o 


«r <o 




1 




uiioinio co o 


■* ^ 






IO IO 




£ 




CM CM* CM* CM CO" 0> 
CO CO CO CO ^ Q 
J» ~~~- " — J^, S, 


3 3 






■O M> 








J* •» 




o 




^iniO'-coiocoNN 








o 


Sgco8cor^«-r^9h«. 


o » 

O IO 


to 


V 


w> 


_- co" co" cm" »-" to" «- •- d 






o> — 

to £ 


If^ 


J co_ oo_ co_ to_ •- tt> co co 


co to 


3" 


o» o 


V 


5 to" io" o>" co" co" V 


r»"*» 


CO" 




2 


CM 


2 


8 


£ 


v> 








Is 




sSaSsS^sSjSsSsS^ 


^S! 


a? 


Is 

12 




OU1I0I0C0U)(0t-O 

0>O>0)tWWN»CO 


8§ 


8 




♦ J o>o>to"tdoto"t>"o 


r 


o 
o 








•" 




8 


_inin»-o)nco»-N 
^iniflo^Sr-ocj 

5 *. *. °. s . "i N . ™. N . 


§° 


§ 




- io" <o" io" •— cm" »-"»-" d 






»S 




25 co_ S_ 5_ S cm S to co 


S" 


3 

co" 


5 £ 


of 
io 


3 ">" ">" o>" co" co" V 

CM 


** • 


*» 










aSaSaea-^aPaeaPaP 


»« ° 


a? 


l g 

3* 




QQOQcoocO'>ro 

OSOJ)(M«1M(J tO 


8 


8 




cm d id i to i to o to h» d 

•♦ ^- »- •- 


8 


8 






3 






to 






— " CO 




8 


-? i - 

8 Si2 5 1 
« H? | £ if- 

c!;i|f|!l|J § «f K 
i 8u -:iiillll 




3 


s 

i 

> 
• 

M 

a 
» 


i 

> 
• 

a 

O 

X 
a 
o 


X 


»- 


<3 co5q-Ooo_i3< 


o 





23 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 16, 1992 

Item 6 -File 127-92-2.1 

1. Ordinance amending Part III of the San Francisco Municipal Code by 
amending Section 807 thereof, providing an exemption from the payment of the 
Stadium Operator Admission Tax, by extending for one year, through December 31, 
1993, the exemption from the payment Admission Taxes on tickets sold at $17.99 or 
less. 

2. Until December 31, 1992, Section 807 of Article II, Part II of the San 
Francisco Municipal Code provided for an exemption from the $0.50 Stadium 
Operator Admission Tax for tickets priced at $12.99 or less for the first 42,500 paid 
admissions to any single event. The proposed ordinance would amend Section 807 to 
extend the exemption from the $0.50 tax for tickets but at the increased price limit of 
$17.99 or less (a $5.00 increase in the prices of exempt tickets) for the first 42,500 
paid admissions at each event to be effective for one year, until December 31, 1993. 

3. The Stadium Operator Admission Tax was established in 1971 to partially 
finance the expansion of Candlestick Park. The Giants report that a) the stadium 
expansion of 1970 was exclusively for the accommodation of football; b) between 
1970 and 1979, attendance in excess of pre-expansion capacity (approximately 
42,500) occurred on only 15 occasions totaling only 118,526 tickets with total 
additional ticket sales from the expansion resulting in approximately $511,600 of 
additional revenue; c) during this same time period (1970-79), the Giants generated 
approximately $2,064,046 in Stadium Operator Admission Tax revenues. Since 1980, 
the Giants have exceeded pre-expansion capacity on 60 dates (10 of these dates were 
in the 1989 season which had total attendance of 2,370,126 including 310,297 for 
three playoff games and two World Series games). 

4. Prior to 1977, exemptions from this Stadium Operator Tax had a minor 
impact on revenues and were primarily limited to tickets priced $2.01 or less. From 
1977 through 1987, the ticket prices to be exempt rose several times. During 1988 
and 1989, the exemption was on tickets of $12.99 or less for the first 42,500 paid 
admissions at each event. Tickets sold in excess of 42,500 at each event were subject 
to the $0.50 tax. As previously noted, the proposed ordinance would extend the 
exemption from the $0.50 tax for tickets at the increased price limit of $17.99 or less 
for the first 42,500 paid admissions until December 31, 1993. 

5. Actual revenues to the Candlestick Park Fund from the $0.50 Stadium 
Operator Admission Tax from FY 1986-87 through FY 1991-92 have been as follows: 

1987-88 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93**** 

49ers $306,400 $349,089 $341,000 $326,000 $326,000 $523,000 
Giants 87,636* 11,094** 176,259*** 22,262** 6,761**740,000 
Monsters of Rock 
Concert 32.500 



Total $394,036 $392,683 $517,259 $348,262 $332,761$!, 263,000 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

24 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 16, 1992 

* Reflects Admission Tax payments on playoff games which had ticket prices 
exceeding $9.99. 

** Reflects Admission Tax payments for those tickets sold for all seats in excess of 
42,500 at each game. 

*** Reflects Admission Tax payments for those tickets sold for all seats in excess of 
42,500 at each game and for playoff and World Series games which had ticket prices 
exceeding $12.99. 

**** Budgeted Amounts 

6. Ticket prices for the Giants in 1992 were $12.25 for a lower box, $11.25 for 
an upper box, $10.25 for a lower reserved seat, $8.25 for an upper reserved seat, 
$5.25 for a pavilion seat, and $2.75 for a general admission seat. 

7. The proposed exemption from the $0.50 Stadium Operator Admission Tax 
would apply to tickets priced at $17.99 or less rather than for tickets priced at $12.99 
or less as the 1992 exemption provided. According to Mr. Phil Arnold of the Recreation 
and Park Department, the proposed increase of ticket price Stadium Operator 
Admission Tax exemption from $12.99 to $17.99 is because the Giants intend to 
increase ticket prices for the 1993 baseball season. As of the writing of this report, 
the proposed ticket price increases have not been disclosed. However, because the 
proposed exemption is for tickets sold at $17.99, it is reasonable to expect that the 
Giants' increased ticket prices for the 1993 season will not exceed $17.99. Thus, all 
the tickets sold by the Giants, (excluding those tickets sold in excess of 42,500 per 
game, and excluding playoff and World Series tickets) which have a price of less than 
$17.99, are exempt from the Stadium Operator Admission Tax. Ticket prices for the 
49ers are $35.75 for all seats in 1992. In accordance with a 1985 agreement between 
the City and the 49ers, luxury boxes are exempt from the Stadium Operator 
Admission Tax. 

8. The projected amount of annual revenue in 1993 from the Stadium Operator 
Admission Tax, a) based on an exemption for all tickets sold at $2.01 or less (which 
would result if this proposed ordinance were not approved), and b) based on an 
exemption for all tickets sold at $17.99 or less (which would result if this proposed 
ordinance were approved), and c) based on budgeted and projected 1993 attendance 
figures, would be as follows: 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

25 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 16, 1992 








Proiected 1993 Stadium 


Operator Admission Tax Revenues 




If exemption of tax 

is on all tickets 

of $2.01 or less 

(If proposed 

legislation 

is not approved) 


If exemption of tax 

is on all tickets 

of$17.99orlessfor 

the first 42,500 

paid admissions 

at each event 

(If proposed 

legislation 

is approved) 


Estimated 

Additional Revenues 

to the City 

(If proposed 

legislation 

is not approved) 


49ers 
Giants 


$326,000 

875.000 


$326,000 
6.761 




$868,239 


Total 


$1,201,000 


$332,761 


$868,239 



Approval of the proposed legislation would result in an estimated loss of 
revenues to the City of $868,239. 

Comment 

In May of 1992, the Board of Supervisors granted an exemption to the 
Stadium Operator Tax on all tickets of $12.99 or less. When the Finance Committee 
passed this legislation out to the full Board of Supervisors, the Committee stated that 
this would be the last time that the exemption would be granted Based on that stated 
intent, the Recreation and Park Department and the Controller's Office included 
$700,000 in additional Stadium Operator Admission Tax revenue in the Recreation 
and Park Department's FY 1992-93 budget. 1 Thus, if the proposed exemption is 
granted, the Candlestick Park Fund would realize a shortfall of $700,000 in budgeted 
revenue. In FY 1992-93 the Candlestick Park Fund had a surplus of approximately 
$3.5 million which was budgeted as a transfer to the General Fund. In order to 
operate Candlestick Park at its current level, this $3.5 million transfer to the General 
Fund would have to be reduced by $700,000 in FY 1992-93. Therefore, if the proposed 
exemption is approved, an amount of $700,000 less would be transferred from the 
Candlestick Park Fund to the General Fund. It should be noted that the proposed 
concessions to the Giants of approximately $3.1 million annually ($1.5 million in FY 
1992-93) will also reduce the Candlestick Park Fund transfer to the General Fund by 
approximately $1.5 million, thereby resulting in total reduced transfers to the General 
Fund of $2.2 million ($1.5 million plus $700,000) in 1992-93, if the $3.1 million of 
concessions are granted to the Giants and if this proposed exemption of the Stadium 
Operator Admission tax is approved. 



lr The Department budgeted $700,000 in Stadium Operator Admission Tax revenue instead of 
$868,239 which is the projected additional annual revenue form the Giants paying the Stadium 
Operator Admission Tax. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

26 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 16, 1992 



Recommendation 



In May of 1992 the Finance Committee expressed its intent to not approve an 
exemption to the Stadium Operator Admission Tax in 1993 and the Recreation and 
Park Department and the Controller's Office included $700,000 in revenues from the 
Stadium Operator Admission Tax to reflect that intent. 

Approval of the proposed exemption is a policy matter for the Board of 
Supervisors. As stated above, such approval would result in a loss to the City's 
General Fund of $700,000 for FY 1992-93. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

27 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 16, 1992 

Items 7 and 8 -Files 101-92-15 and 102-92-7 

Note: These items were continued at the December 9, 1992 Finance 
Committee Meeting. 



Department: 
Items: 



Amount: 
Source of Funds: 



Description: 



Department of Public Health 

Item 7 - Supplemental appropriation ordinance (File 101-92- 
15) for permanent salaries, related mandatory fringe 
benefits, other contractual services, auto mileage, travel, 
training, other current services, telephone, materials and 
supplies, data/word processing equipment purchase/lease 
and reproduction. 

Item 8 - Ordinance (File 102-92-7) to amend the Annual 
Salary Ordinance to create two new positions. 

$37^89 

New revenues generated by implementing Medical Waste 
Generator fees. No General Fund monies are required. 

The California Medical Waste Management Act of 1990 
authorizes local agencies to establish a medical waste 
regulatory program. The Board of Supervisors previously 
approved an ordinance (File 118-92-8) to amend the San 
Francisco Health Code to provide for the Medical Waste 
Generator Program. Medical Waste is the discarded 
superfluous material from medical or veterinary agencies 
that may contain infectious disease organisms that may be a 
health threat to humans and animals. The Medical Waste 
Generator Program regulates the storage, treatment, 
transportation and disposal of medical waste within the City. 

The proposed ordinances would create two new positions to 
operate the Medical Waste Generator Program and would 
fund those two new positions and related operating costs for 
the start-up of the Medical Waste Generator Program. 

The proposed ordinance (File 102-92-7) to amend the 1992-93 
Annual Salary Ordinance would create two new positions, as 
follows: 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

28 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 16, 1992 



Biweekly Annual 

Salary Salary At 

Classification Range TopStep 

6122 Senior Environmental Health Inspector $2,135-2,596 $67,756 

1446 Secretary II 1,158-1,401 36,566 

For the balance of Fiscal Year 1992-93, the proposed new 6122 
Senior Environmental Health Inspector position would be 
full-time beginning June 1, 1993 (2.2 biweekly pay periods- 
BWPP) and the proposed new 1446 Secretary II position 
would be half-time beginning January 1, 1993 (12.9 biweekly 
pay periods). 

The proposed supplemental appropriation ordinance File 101- 
92-15) would fund the proposed two new positions and 
program operating costs for the period from January 1, 
through June 30, 1993 as follows: 

Personnel 

Permanent Salaries-Miscellaneous: 
6122 Sr. Environmental Health Insp. (2.2 BWPP @ $2,596) $5,711 

1446 Secretary U (12.9 BWPP @ $1,336 @ half-time) 8,617 

Mandatory Fringe Benefits 3.575 

Subtotal-Personnel $17,903 

Operating Costs 

Other Contractual Services $2,000 

The DPH currently contracts with the firm of 
American Environmental Management to perform 
emergency cleanup of hazardous materials on an 
as-needed basis. This contractor would also 
perform medical waste cleanups, as needed. The 
average cost of such incidents is $750 and, on 
average, three such incidents will occur between 
171/93 and 6/30/93. 

Auto Mileage 300 

Travel 250 

Training 500 



BOARD OF SUPKRVTSOT^ 
BUDGET ANALYST 

29 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 16, 1992 

Other Current Services $4,975 

Postage to mail medical waste packets to medical 
waste generators ($3,100). Compliance pamphlets 
and guidebooks printing ($1,750). Rental of pager for 
inspector ($125). 

Telephone 300 

Materials and Supplies 2,161 

Office supplies ($961) and computer supplies 
($1,200). 

Reproduction 2.000 

Application packets, information documents and 
photographs and slides related to training and 
enforcement. 

Subtotal-Operating Costs $12,486 

Equipment 

Data/Word Processing Equipment Purchase/Lease 7.500 

One Personal Computer (PC) and related 

equipment and one laser printer 

Total Proposed Supplemental Appropriation $37,889 

Comments: 1. The proposed funding for auto mileage is based on local 

travel costs of the Senior Environmental Health Inspector for 
a six-month period. Because the Senior Environmental 
Health Inspector will not be hired until June 1, 1993, only $50 
for one month of auto mileage is required for the Senior 
Environmental Health Inspector. However, the DPH requests 
that an additional $100 be allowed for reimbursement of auto 
mileage of other, existing employees of the DPH hazardous 
waste program that will be performing medical waste 
program activities for the five-month period between the start 
of the program on January 1, 1993 and the hiring of the new 
Senior Environmental Health Inspector. Therefore, the 
proposed budget for auto mileage should be reduced by $150 
from $300 to $150. 

2. The $125 cost for the rental of a pager is also based on six 
months of use by the Senior Environmental Health Inspector. 
The $125 should be reduced by $105 from $125 to $20 for the 
five months between January 1 and May 31, 1993 before the 
Senior Environmental Health Inspector is hired. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

30 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 16, 1992 

3. The DPH reports that the Electronic Information 
Processing Steering Committee (EIPSC) has not yet approved 
the purchase of the computer equipment. Therefore, the 
proposed $7,500 for Data/Word Processing Equipment 
Purchase/Lease should be reserved pending EIPSC approval. 

Recommendations: 1. Amend the proposed supplemental appropriation 
ordinance (File 101-92-15) to reduce (a) the requested funding 
for Auto Mileage by $150 from $300 to $150 as detailed in 
Comment 1, above and (b) the requested funding for Other 
Current Services by $105 for pager rental from $4,975 to $4,870 
as detailed in Comment 2, above. 

2. Amend the proposed supplemental appropriation 
ordinance (File 101-92-15) to reserve $7,500 for Data/Word 
Processing Equipment Purchase/Lease pending EIPSC 
approval. 

3. Based on the previous Board of Supervisors approval of the 
Medical Waste Generator Program (File 118-92-8), approve 
the proposed supplemental appropriation ordinance (File 101- 
92-15), as amended, to fund the program for the balance of 
Fiscal Year 1992-93 and approve the proposed ordinance to 
amend the Annual Salary Ordinance (File 102-92-7) to create 
two new positions for the program. 



BOARD OF S UPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

31 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 16, 1992 

Item 9 - File 265-92-1 

Note: This item was transferred from the Economic and Social Policy Committee 
Meeting on December 8,1992 because of its fiscal impact. 



Item: 



Description: 



Resolution declaring it to be the policy of the Board of 
Supervisors to foster the growth of the Interactive Media 
Industry in the San Francisco Bay Area and to take various 
actions in furtherance of the growth of this industry in the 
San Francisco Bay Area. 

Interactive Media provides information/entertainment 
services through the use of computers. The proposed 
resolution states that the San Francisco Bay area is currently 
the defacto capital of the developing Interactive Media 
industry because of the concentration of computer, video, 
writing and arts skills available in the Bay Area. 
Additionally, according to the resolution, the strategic 
economic importance of this industry is significant to San 
Francisco. All inclusive worldwide revenue for this industry 
is expected to be between $25 and $31 billion by the year 1995, 
according to the resolution. 

The International Interactive Communications Society 
(IICS) was founded in San Francisco over nine years ago. 
This organization is composed of representatives from the 
business community, the educational community, 
government, computer hardware/software companies, and 
groups representing multimedia developers, book publishers, 
filmmakers, printers, graphic designers, musicians, and 
artists. The objectives of this organization include (1) 
developing an understanding of Interactive Media through 
educational institutions, (2) creating a Multimedia 
Showcase/Center where both public and private 
organizations can use Interactive Media, (3) integrating fiber 
optics (the transmission of light through transparent fibers 
for the transmission of data, communications, and images) 
into communication systems and (4) providing business 
assistance to the growing base of Interactive Media 
producers. 

Local Interactive Media industry representatives, including 
the IICS, testified before the Finance Committee in hearings 
during March and April of 1992. The industry 
representatives advised the Finance Committee that the 
Interactive Media industry is a high growth industry and 
has a unique ability to create a large number of jobs. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

32 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 16, 1992 



According to the proposed resolution, the local individuals 
and companies that currently make up this industry are 
generally in their start-up phases and are therefore in need 
of resources to enhance their capabilities and allow them to 
reach their maximum potential. As such, the proposed 
resolution would provide that the Board of Supervisors 
undertake the following steps in support of this industry: 

1. Work cooperatively with other public and private 
entities, public utilities, non-government organizations, 
State agencies and other city governments, in the San 
Francisco Bay Area. 

2. Make it a City policy to encourage and assist the public 
and private educational institutions in San Francisco in 
establishing curricula and degree programs which will 
produce workers trained in the disciplines necessary to 
fuel this industry. 

3. Consider zoning laws which would permit and 
encourage public utilities and private industry to build a 
lattice of high bandwidth telecommunications lines in 
sections of the City where high concentrations of 
interactive media developers and the supporting 
industries are expected ( i.e., the Financial District, 
South of Market, Mission Bay, Indian Basin and the 
Commercial Waterfront). According to the proposed 
resolution these telecommunications lines would 
provide a cost effective, state-of-the-art means for the 
Interactive Media industry to exchange video, audio, 
text, and graphic information, which is important to the 
high-performance functioning of the industry and 
related industries. 

4. Have the City evaluate the use of Interactive Media by 
City employees for training purposes, as job aids and to 
provide information directly to citizens. 

5. Evaluate the use of Interactive Media to provide public 
information to tourists, in the San Francisco Airport, 
BART and other locations where there are high 
concentrations of tourists. 

6. Recommend that the City evaluate its participation in 
"electronic highways" (fiber optic network 
transmissions) initiatives. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

33 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 16, 1992 



7. Declare that the City will participate in and assist in 
the funding of a San Francisco Bay Area Interactive 
Media industry umbrella organization. Composition of 
this organization would include City representatives, 
computer hardware and software interests, Interactive 
Media publishing interests, professional society 
representatives, telecommunications interests, liaisons 
to Pacific Rim and European communities and 
representatives from local educational institutions with 
multimedia curricula. 

8. Declare that the City, in partnership with the 
aforementioned umbrella organization and the 
Interactive Media industry sponsors, will consider 
establishing, as well as assisting in the funding of an 
Interactive Media Center. The Center, which would 
serve as a focal point for the Interactive Media industry, 
would be used for the following functions: (1) a library of 
Interactive Media with a viewing area, (2) a meeting 
place for industry groups, (3) small conference areas 
and Interactive Media equipped presentation facilities, 
and office space for the IICS San Francisco Bay Area 
Chapter and/or the above noted local umbrella 
organization. 

9. Urge the Mayor to allocate staff support from the 
Office of Economic Development to work with the 
proposed umbrella organization on implementing the 
various directives of the proposed resolution. 

10. Urge the Mayor to identify any available funds within 
the existing Economic Development budget in the 
amount of $15,000 to $25,000 to be used for the 
development of a strategic plan for the establishment of 
the Interactive Media industry umbrella organization, 
the Interactive Media Center and the Interactive Media 
Festival. 

11. Declare that the City should allocate monies from the 
Hotel Tax Fund to sponsor an international Interactive 
Media Festival modeled on the Cannes Film Festival. 
The purpose of this festival would be to showcase, judge 
and create a marketplace for Interactive Media. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

34 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 16, 1992 



Comments: 1. Mr. Ron Blatman of the Mayor's Office of Economic 

Planning and Development (MOEPD), reports that any 
support services that are provided to the Interactive Media 
industry umbrella organization would be absorbed by existing 
staff. 

2. According to Mr. Kent Sims, Director of the Mayor's Office 
of Economic Planning and Development, MOEPD has 
committed staff expertise to aiding the development of San 
Francisco's Interactive Media industry and will continue to 
work with industry participants to facilitate industry growth 
in San Francisco, as well as assist them in identifying 
sources of support and organization models. However, Mr. 
Sims advises that the Mayor's Office does not have any 
discretionary funds available in FY 1992-93 to dedicate to the 
promotion of this industry. According to Mr. Sims, the 
Mayor's Office will however, attempt to identify specific 
projects for which the Mayor's Office could provide funding 
assistance in FY 1993-94 to help promote the development of 
the Interactive Media industry. 

3. Mr. Blatman and Mr. Tim Boyle of the HCS advised that 
no definitive estimate has yet been made regarding the 
amount of City monies which might be allocated to fund the 
Interactive Media industry umbrella organization and the 
Interactive Media Center. Additionally, Mr. Blatman and 
Mr. Boyle advised that to their knowledge, no specific 
estimate has yet been made regarding either the amount of 
Hotel Tax monies which might be allocated to fund the 
international Interactive Media Festival or the amount of 
Hotel Tax monies which might be reallocated from existing 
organizations in order to provide Hotel Tax monies to the 
Interactive Media Festival. 

Reco mmen dation: Approval of the proposed resolution is a policy matter for the 
Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



35 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 16, 1992 

Item 10 - File 100-92-9 

Note: This item was continued at the December 2, 1992, Finance Committee 
meeting. 

This item is a hearing to consider the City's efforts to secure anticipated 
revenues and fund transfers needed to balance the 1992-93 fiscal year budget for 
the City and County of San Francisco. 

On October 27, 1992, a joint report was issued by the Mayor's Budget Office, 
the Controller and the Budget Analyst on the status of matters which are still 
pending action to balance the FY 1992-93 budget. These matters include the 
following items: 

Airport Advance - ($25 million): The Board of Supervisors approved a 
resolution authorizing an agreement between the City, the Airports Commission, 
and various airlines regarding advance payment to the City of $25 million from the 
Airport's Capital Improvement Fund at its meeting of December 7, 1992. 

PUC Equity Transfers and Land Sale - ($7.2 million): The Board of 
Supervisors, at its meeting of December 7, 1992, approved equity transfers from the 
Water Department ($4.7 million) including $2.2 million from the proposed sale of 
the Water Department property to the Olympic Club and Hetch Hetchy ($2.5 
million). 

Port Transfer - ($1 million) The FY 1992-93 budget approved by the Board of 
Supervisors already includes the $1 million transfer from the Port to the City's 
General Fund. The City Attorney is developing an opinion regarding the legality of 
such a transfer of funds. As of the writing of this report the City Attorney has not 
finalized this opinion. 

The Controller has been requested by the Finance Committee to provide an 
update on the City's current revenues and expenditures projection. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

36 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 16, 1992 

Item 11 -File 161-92-5.1 

Note: This item was continued at the December 9, 1992, Finance Committee 
meeting. 



Department: 
Item: 

Description: 



Comments: 



Recommendations: 



San Francisco Redevelopment Agency (SFRA) 

Resolution approving an amendment to the Redevelopment 
Agency's FY 1992-93 budget. 

The proposed resolution would appropriate 830,000 from a 
recent bond transaction fee paid to the SFRA to fund a 
personal services contract with a consultant to provide 
bilingual technical services to nonprofit organizations and 
24th Street merchants as part of the 24th Street 
Revitalization Project. 

Mr. Bob Gamble of the SFRA reports that the SFRA recently 
received $81,000 from the Webster Tower and Terrace bond 
transaction. $51,000 represents fees past due and $30,000 
represents new fees. The proposed resolution would 
approve an amendment to the SFRA's budget to appropriate 
$30,000 of these revenues. The remaining $51,000 has not yet 
been targeted for a specific purpose. 

1. As previously noted, the proposed budget amendment 
would appropriate $30,000 in bond transaction fees. 
However, the body of the proposed resolution indicates that 
the proposed amendment to the SFRA's budget would 
permit a transfer of line items for the expenditure of $30,000 
for a personal services contract. As such, the proposed 
resolution should be amended to delete reference to "the 
transfer of line items" and replace it with "appropriate new 
revenues." 

2. Mr. Leaman Abrams of the Redevelopment Agency 
reports that the SFRA has advertised for the proposed 
consultant position but has not yet selected a consultant. As 
such, the Budget Analyst recommends that the $30,000 be 
placed on reserve pending selection of the consultant. 
Instead, the SFRA requests the proposed resolution be 
continued to the call of the Chair pending the SFRA's 
selection of a consultant. 

1. Amend the proposed resolution to delete reference to 
"transfer of line items" and replace with "appropriate new 
revenues" as described in Comment 1. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

37 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 16, 1992 



2. Continue the proposed resolution as amended to the call 
of the Chair pending the SFRA's selection of a consultant as 
described in Comment 2. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

38 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 16, 1992 

Item 12 - File 101-92-20 

Item: This item is a hearing to consider the transfer of a portion of 

the Family Violence Project's funding to the Sheriffs 
Department. 

1. The Family Violence Project originated in 1980 as a 
Federal demonstration grant project to enhance awareness 
and intervention against domestic violence by working to 
improve the prosecution of alleged batterers, providing 
assistance and counseling to women and children who have 
confronted domestic violence, training health workers, peace 
officers, and other professionals in responding to cases of 
domestic violence, and identifying gaps in service and 
working to correct them. At the time the Family Violence 
Project was established, it was located in the District 
Attorney's Office, in part because one of the authors of the 
Federal grant proposal was then the Director of the District 
Attorney's Victims Witness Assistance Bureau, which 
assists victims of all violent crimes, including domestic 
violence, in seeking compensation available from the State. 

2. Beginning in approximately 1982, the Federal grant funds 
were augmented with City General Fund monies and private 
foundation grants. In approximately 1985, a non-profit 
agency was established under the name of the Family 
Violence Project, to administer a greater share of foundation 
grants and other private funding, and to expand advocacy, 
public education, and prevention efforts concerning domestic 
violence. In 1991, the non-profit agency changed its name 
from the Family Violence Project to the Family Violence 
Prevention Fund. The Family Violence Project now refers to 
the combined efforts of the Family Violence Prevention Fund 
and the domestic violence services in the District Attorney's 
Office. 

3. In Fiscal Year 1992-93, the District Attorney's budget 
includes $291,955 for the Family Violence Project. These 
funds are used to provide services at the Hall of Justice, 
including assistance and advocacy for victims of domestic 
violence, counseling in criminal justice procedures, 
assistance and referral in civil matters (such as restraining 
orders and divorce proceedings), policy and procedures 
development for the District Attorney's Office, Police 
Department, and San Francisco General Hospital, public 
conferences, training of health care providers in recognizing 
cases of domestic violence, and outreach to San Francisco 
residents, especially those at special risk of confronting 
domestic violence. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGFrr ANALYST 

39 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 16, 1992 



4. According to Ms. Esta Soler, Executive Director of the 
Family Violence Prevention Fund, a proposal is being 
considered to transfer $196,582 in funding for the Family 
Violence Project from the District Attorney's Office to the 
Sheriffs Department. Budgeted funds of $95,373 would 
remain with the District Attorney. Ms. Soler states that the 
Sheriff would request approval of a Proposition J certification 
to award the transferred funds for a contract to the Family 
Violence Prevention Fund, as a non-profit agency, to provide 
continued public services concerning domestic violence. 

Ms. Sue Martin of the Family Violence Project states that the 
intent of the proposed transfer of funds is to shift the 
advocacy, education, and prevention services of the Family 
Violence Project from the District Attorney's Office to the 
Family Violence Prevention Fund. Under the proposal, 
funding would continue in the District Attorney's budget for 
those activities which are specifically related to the 
prosecution of domestic violence complaints. Specifically, 
Ms. Martin states that funding would continue in the District 
Attorney's budget for assisting victims of domestic violence in 
understanding criminal justice procedures, obtaining "stay- 
away" orders, preparing for Court appearances, and other 
legal matters related to prosecution. 

5. Ms. Martin states that most outside sources of funding for 
the outreach, education, and prevention activities of the 
Family Violence Project are now granted to the Family 
Violence Prevention Fund. In 1992-93, the San Francisco 
Commission on the Status of Women granted $73,217 to the 
Family Violence Prevention Fund for such outreach and 
prevention activities. The total 1992-93 budget of the Family 
Violence Prevention Fund, including the $73,217 allocated to 
the agency by the Commission on the Status of Women, is 
approximately $860,000, according to Ms. Martin. 

6. Of the $291,955 appropriated to the District Attorney's 
Office in 1992-93 for the Family Violence Project, the 
following table shows the specific positions and the amount of 
funds proposed to be transferred to the Sheriff and to remain 
with the District Attorney's Office on an annual basis: 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

40 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 16, 1992 



Services to be Transferred to Sheriff FTE Amount 

8452 Criminal Justice Specialist II* 0.90 $36,495 

8452 Criminal Justice Specialist II** 0.80 33,028 

8454 Criminal Justice Specialist III 0.20 10,627 

Principal Clerk 1.00 38,622 

Victim/Witness Investigator III 0.40 15.808 

Subtotal 3.30 139,580 

Fringe Benefits (29 percent) 40,472 

* Funded through the District Attorney's Prosecution Section 
** This position is currently vacant 



Operating Expense 

Subtotal: Proposed to be Transferred to Sheriff 
Services to Remain w ith District Attorney FTE 



Victim & Witness Technician 
Victim/Witness Investigator I 
Victim/Witness Investigator II 
Victim/Witness Investigator III 

Subtotal 



0.60 
0.80 
0.80 
0.20 
2.40 



Fringe Benefits (11.9 percent) 

Subtotal: Proposed to Remain with District Attorney 
Total 1992-93 Family Violence Project Budget 



16.530 



Amount 

$19,771 

24,315 

33254 

_L9JH 

$85,244 

10-129 



$19632 



95,373 
$291,955 



The budget summary presented above does not reflect that the 
District Attorney's budget for the Family Violence Project 
includes $8,949 in salary savings for 1992-93. The District 
Attorney's budget for the Domestic Violence Project also 
includes an Assistant Chief Victims/Witness Investigator 
and a Chief Victims/Witness Investigator at an annual cost 
of $98,893, but these positions have not been filled, and the 
budget therefore also includes a salary adjustment of $98,583 
to deduct funds for these positions. 

7. Ms. Martin has estimated that, of the $291,955 budgeted for 
the Family Violence Project in the District Attorney's 1992-93 
budget, $95,373 is the budgeted cost of the prosecution-related 
services which are proposed to remain in the District 
Attorney's budget, and $196,582 is the budgeted cost of the 
City-wide education and advocacy services which are 
proposed to be performed by the Family Violence Prevention 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



41 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 16, 1992 



Fund under contract with the Sheriffs Department. The 
Budget Analyst will examine the appropriateness of these 
proposed allocations, including the amount which should be 
transferred based on the period remaining in the current 
fiscal year, if the Mayor approves a supplemental 
appropriation request for the transfer of funds from the 
District Attorney to the Sheriffs Department for the Family 
Violence Project. 

8. Ms. Soler states that if the Family Violence Prevention 
Fund is awarded a Proposition J personal services contract 
by the Sheriffs Department using transferred funds, five 
Civil Service positions which are now included in the District 
Attorney's budget, would become employees of the non-profit 
agency, rather than the City. In addition, Ms. Soler states 
that the Family Violence Prevention Fund would employ 
student interns to provide services. Ms. Soler estimates that 
savings of approximately $20,000 in salary costs would be 
realized in fiscal year 1993-94 if a Proposition J contract were 
awarded to the Family Violence Prevention Fund 

Mr. Arnie Sowell of the Controller's Office states that any 
cost savings which could be realized under a Proposition J 
personal services contract to the Family Violence Prevention 
Fund have not yet been determined, since the Controller has 
not received the supplemental appropriation request from the 
Mayor's Office, which would be needed if funds were to be 
transferred from the District Attorney's Office to the Sheriffs 
Department to fund a proposed personal services contract. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 16, 1992 

Item 13 - File 97-92-63 

Note: This item was continued at the December 9, 1992, Finance Committee 
meeting. 

1. The proposed ordinance would amend the San Francisco Administrative 
Code by amending Section 10.117-68, which establishes and governs the 
maintenance of the Cable Television Access Development and Programming Fund, 
by providing for the balance of all funds remaining in the Fund at the close of each 
Fiscal Year to be carried forward and accumulated in said Fund. 

2. The Cable Television Access Development and Programming Fund (CATV 
Fund) was established by the Board of Supervisors for the purpose of receiving 0.2 
percent of the Franchise Fee from Viacom which was to be used for development of 
municipal, educational and public access to cable television and related 
programming. Section 10.117-68 currently provides that the balance of 
appropriated funds remaining in the CATV Fund at the close of each fiscal year 
shall be deemed to have been provided for a specific purpose and shall be carried 
forward and accumulated in the CATV Fund for the purposes for which the CATV 
Fund was established. Section 10.117-68 also provides that the balance of 
unappropriated funds remaining in the CATV Fund at the close of each fiscal year 
shall be transferred to the General Fund as franchise and permit fee revenue. 

3. The proposed ordinance would delete the language in Section 10.117-68 
that currently permits the transfer of the balance of unappropriated funds 
remaining in the CATV Fund at the close of each fiscal to the General Fund 
resulting in the requirement that all funds, either appropriated or unappropriated, 
be retained in the CATV Fund and carried forward to the next fiscal year. 
Therefore, transfers of unappropriated funds from the CATV Fund to the General 
Fund would not be automatic in the future and would instead require specific 
authorization by the Board of Supervisors. 

Comments 

1. Ms. Susan Maher of the Controller's Office reports that although the 
current provisions of Section 10.117-68 provide that the balance of unappropriated 
funds remaining in the CATV Fund at the close of each fiscal year shall be 
transferred to the General Fund, no such transfers have been made in the past, 
since the establishment of the CATV Fund in 1987. 

2. At their meeting of October 27, 1992 the Administration and Oversight 
Committee held a hearing (File 100-92-2.1) to consider pending revisions to the 
appropriations of the Department of the Board of Supervisors totaling $130,000 in 
reductions. The $130,000 included a total of $74,096 in reductions to Official 
Advertising ($15,294), Reproduction ($20,000), Mail Services ($5,000), Data Word 
Processing Equipment Maintenance ($3,000) and a reduction in the Budget 
Analyst's contract ($30,802). The $55,904 balance of the $130,000 reduction 
($130,000 less $74,096) was to be met by an $8,208 increase in revenues and a 
transfer of funds from the CATV Fund of $47,696. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

43 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 16, 1992 

3. The Board of Supervisors adopted a motion requesting the Clerk of the 
Board of Supervisors to undertake the following to eliminate the $82,304 budgetary 
shortfall ($130,000 less the $47,696 transfer from the CATV Fund) that otherwise 
would have required increased fees of $8,208 and expenditure reductions totaling 
$74,096: 

A. Take all necessary steps to provide more flexibility to the Board of 
Supervisors to make use of a portion of the accumulated unspent 
resources in the CATV Fund without reducing current appropriations for 
educational access and public access. 

B. Ask the Controller to prepare necessary revisions in the Board's 
1992-93 budget to maintain the level of services from the Budget Analyst 
provided in the budget adopted in July 1992, and to restore 
appropriations to the Board's legal advertising, reproduction, and mail 
services accounts so that the public's right to be fully informed about 
proposed legislation will not be impaired, and to avoid imposing 
excessive fees on members of the public. 

4. The Controller's Office is currently processing the transfer of $47,696 from 
the CATV Fund. The CATV Fund would still have a balance of $99,494 after 
effecting the transfer of $47,696. An additional transfer of $82,304 from the CATV 
Fund would still leave a CATV Fund unappropriated balance of $17,190. 

5. Mr. John Taylor, the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, indicates that the 
proposed ordinance would clarify the Administrative Code regarding the CATV 
Fund year-end balance by deleting the language that requires the automatic 
transfer of the unappropriated balance of funds in the CATV Fund to the General 
Fund. Mr. Taylor states that upon adoption of the proposed ordinance, additional, 
legislation to transfer funds from the CATV Fund to the General Fund will be 
submitted for consideration by the Finance Committee and the full Board of 
Supervisors in order to eliminate the $82,304 balance of budgetary reductions and 
fee increases to the Board's 1992-93 budget. 

Recomm endation 

Approve the proposed ordinance. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

44 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 16, 1992 

Item 14 -File 97-92-67 



Department: 

Item: 



Description: 



Board of Supervisors 

Ordinance amending Administrative Code by adding Section 
8.37 thereto, authorizing the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors 
to collect fees to defray the cost of mailing and providing 
copies of documents relating to the business of the Board of 
Supervisors. 

The proposed ordinance would allow the Clerk of the Board of 
Supervisors to charge and collect fees to defray the cost of the 
issuance of documents and services. The Budget Analyst's 
memo dated June 3, 1992, included recommendations on the 
amount of these fees based upon cost considerations and 
comparable fees charged by other California counties. Many 
of these recommended fees by the Budget Analyst have been 
incorporated into the proposed ordinance. The proposed 
ordinance does not specify whether these fees would be 
charged specifically to the public or whether the fees would 
also be charged to City departments. 

The proposed fees and the projected revenues that would be 
generated by the proposed new fees (based on information 
gathered by the Clerk of the Board's Office on weekly 
activities provided to the public) are as follows: 



Item 



Agenda-Meeting of the Board of Supervisors 
(weekly mailing, annual subscription) 

Agenda-Finance Committee (weekly mailing, 
annual subscription) 

Agenda-Legislative Committee Meetings 
(regular mailing, annual subscription) 

Minutes-Meeting of the Board of Supervisors 
(annual subscription) 

Minutes-Meeting of the Board of Supervisors 
(mailing, per copy) 

Legislative packets-meeting of the Board of 
Supervisors (weekly mailing, annual 
subscription) 



Proposed 
Fee 


Estimated 
Quantitv 


Estimated 

Annual 

Revenues 


$120.00 


70 


$8,400 


70.00 


500 


35,000 


35.00 


1,500 


52,500 


240.00 


30 


7,200 


3.00 


100 


300 



290.00 



35 



10,150 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

45 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 16, 1992 



Item 



Legislative packet-meeting of the Board of 
Supervisors (each set) 

Appeal Filing Conditional Use Permit (per 
filing) 

Late Filing-Application for Temporary Street 
Closure Denial (per filing) 

Appeal Filing-Temporary Street Closure (per 
filing) 

FAX Transmittal (per document) 

Certification of Documents (per document) 

Retrieving File of Board of Supervisors from 
Storage (each file) 

Total Estimated Annual Revenues 



Proposed 
Fee 


Estimated 
Quantitv 

50 


Estimated 

Annual 

Revenues 


$4.00 


$200 


275.00 


9 


2,475 


120.00 


60 


7,200 


58.00 


8 


464 


1.75 


300 


525 


1.75 


360 


630 


6.00 


1,250 


7.500 



$132,544 



Comment: Enterprise fund departments such as the Airport, Port and 

Hetch Hetchy, reimburse the General Fund for 
administrative costs through the City's Cost Allocation Plan. 
According to the State Government Code, general 
government costs, such as costs incurred by the Clerk of the 
Board, may not be recovered through the Cost Allocation 
Plan. The proposed ordinance would allow the Clerk of the 
Board to defray these costs which cannot currently be 
recovered under the City's Cost Allocation Plan. According 
to Mr. John Madden of the Controller's Office, the estimated 
$132,544 in annual revenues would be treated as Board of 
Supervisors departmental revenues of the City's General 
Fund. 

Recommendation: Approve the proposed ordinance. 



BOARD OF S UPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

46 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 16, 1992 

Item 15 -File 28-92-12 

Note: This item was continued at the December 9, 1992, Finance Committee 
meeting. 



Department: 
Item: 



Amount: 



Department of Public Works (DPW) 

Resolution authorizing the Director of DPW to take necessary 
measures to protect the health, welfare and property of the 
citizens of San Francisco by performing the necessary work 
to replace the damaged sidewalks, driveways, tree basins, 
side sewer vents and fencing in areas of heavy pedestrian 
traffic. 

$27^09 



Source of Funds: Defective Sidewalk Repair Revolving Fund 

Description: The City Charter requires property owners to maintain 

sidewalks, driveways, tree basins, side sewer vents and 
fencing in front of and around their property. If there is a 
complaint to the DPW about a damaged sidewalk, the DPW 
notifies the appropriate property owner who in turn has 60 
days to abate the problem. If the damage is not repaired 
within 60 days, the DPW conducts the necessary repairs and 
charges the property owner for the costs incurred. The funds 
used to conduct the necessary repairs comes from the 
Defective Sidewalk Repair Revolving Fund. When the 
property owners reimburse the City for the expenses to 
conduct the repairs, the monies are deposited into the 
Defective Sidewalk Repair Revolving Fund. 

The DPW normally issues an annual contract to a private 
company to provide the repair services. However, the DPW 
has a backlog of approximately 2,300 damaged properties and 
has not selected a contractor for FY 1992-93. Thus, in 
accordance with Section 6.3 of the City's Administrative 
Code, the DPW has executed an emergency contract in the 
amount of $27,309 with Tarn L. Williams Concrete 
Contractors and Associates, a City certified WBE firm, to 
conduct emergency repairs to various damaged sidewalks, 
curbs, driveways, tree basins, side sewer vents and fencing. 

Recommendation Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

47 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 16, 1992 



Item 16 -File 114-92-7 

Note: This item was transferred from the Economic and Social Policy Committee 
Meeting on December 8,1992 because of its fiscal impact. 

Department: Department of Public Works 

Bureau of Building Inspection 

Item: Ordinance amending Part II, Chapter I, of the San Francisco 

Municipal Code (Building Code) by amending Section 104(b) 
to provide that where a building permit application is filed by 
a City department on or after January 1, 1992 to repair a 
City-owned building under the bond-funded Public Safety 
Improvement Projects, the building's existing electrical, 
plumbing, mechanical, fire protection or fife-safety systems 
are not required to comply with this Building Code (a) if the 
system complies with the Code in effect at the time of its 
construction or installation, (b) if the system is safe to 
continue to operate, and (c) if the system is not relocated, 
altered for reuse, or expanded; adopting findings, including 
that it is in the public interest to use Public Safety 
Improvement Project Bond proceeds for earthquake hazard 
reductions rather than for the upgrading of building systems, 
as long as the existing systems, such as electrical systems, can 
be operated safely. 

Description: Chapter I, Section 104 of the Building Code describes when 

previously constructed buildings must comply with current 
Building Code requirements. According to Chapter 104, if any 
system (such as an electrical, plumbing, mechanical, fire 
protection or life-safety systems) is removed during a 
construction project, even if it is replaced without alteration, 
that system must be upgraded to comply with the current 
Building Code. 

In June 1990, the San Francisco electorate approved a 
proposition ($332.4 million) to authorize the issuance of bonds 
to fund Earthquake Safety Programs, such as seismic 
upgrades. These bonds are known as the Public Safety 
Improvement Bonds. Seismic upgrades, asbestos abatement, 
and disability access upgrades might require the temporary 
removal of various building systems, including the electrical, 
plumbing, mechanical, fire protection or life-safety systems 
during construction. These systems may be replaced, 
unchanged, upon completion of construction. 

In order to comply with the Building Code, the City must 
upgrade all systems which are removed during construction to 



48 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 16, 1992 

meet current Building Code standards. According to the 
proposed legislation, it is in the public interest to use the 
Public Safety Improvement Project bond proceeds for their 
principal purposes of earthquake hazard reduction, asbestos 
abatement and disability access, rather than for the 
upgrading of building systems, as long as the existing systems 
can be operated safely. 

The proposed ordinance would amend the Building Code to 
exempt those City-owned building projects funded by the 
Public Safety Improvement Bonds from the current Building 
Code requirements regarding improvements for electrical, 
plumbing, mechanical, fire protection and life safety systems, 
providing that certain conditions are met. Specifically, in 
order to be exempted from the Code, the system must: (1) 
comply with the Code in effect at the time of its original 
construction or installation; (2) be safe to continue to operate 
in the opinion of the Superintendent of the Chief of the 
Bureau of Fire Prevention and Safety; and (3) not be 
relocated, altered for reuse or expanded. 

Comments: 1. On June 13, 1992, the Board of Supervisors approved an 

ordinance amending Chapters 14 and 15 of the Building Code, 
pertaining to seismic retrofitting of private sector buildings, to 
require seismic strengthening of unreinforced masonry 
buildings (UMBs). San Francisco voters subsequently passed a 
maximum of a $350 million bond proposal to fund these UMB 
seismic upgrading projects. That legislation provided that the 
seismic strengthening work would not require alteration of 
existing electrical, plumbing, mechanical, fire protection or 
life-safety systems which are in compliance with the code in 
effect at the time of their construction. 

2. Under the $332.4 million Earthquake Safety Program, the 
City is currently providing seismic upgrading to 23 buildings, 
including major Civic Center buildings such as City Hall and 
the War Memorial. These seismic upgrading costs are 
estimated at approximately $204.8 million. The proposed 
ordinance would exempt those buildings which have or will 
file building permits on or after January 1, 1992 from the 
current Building Code requirements relating to electrical, 
plumbing, mechanical, fire protection and life safety upgrades, 
in accordance with the regulations cited above. 

3. According to Mr. Tom Thornton of the Department of 
Public Works (DPW), the anticipated use of the Earthquake 
Safety Bond Program bond proceeds do not include costs to 
upgrade building systems. Although Mr. Thornton reports 



49 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 16, 1992 



that the DPW has not precisely estimated the additional cost 
to the City if all the building systems under the Earthquake 
Safety Program had to be upgraded, Mr. Thornton indicated 
that the costs would be substantial. Given that these 
substantial costs would affect the City's ability to meet the 
construction and seismic upgrading projects funded under the 
Earthquake Safety Program, with the potential of having to 
issue more bonds, the proposed ordinance was determined to 
have a fiscal impact. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed ordinance. 



50 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 16, 1992 

Item 17 File 51-92-3 

Note: This item was continued at the December 2, 1992 Finance Committee 
meeting. 

1. This item transmits 19 City employees' claims for reimbursement for 
personal property damaged and/or stolen in the line of duty for the three month 
period of July, August and September, 1992. 

2. Section 10.25-1 of the San Francisco Administrative Code authorizes the 
Controller to provide reimbursement to City employees to recover part or all of the 
costs of replacing or repairing equipment or property which has been damaged or 
destroyed in the line of duty without the fault of the City employees. After 
reviewing the claim submitted, including the Department Head's certification 
that the damage occurred in the line of duty and that the amount certified for 
payment is fair and reasonable, the Controller makes a recommendation for 
reimbursement or denial of the claim. 

3. Nineteen City employees submitted claims for reimbursement for the 
three month period of July, August and September, 1992. After reviewing the 19 
claims submitted, the Controller's Office recommends the approval of seven 
claims in the total amount of $2,071.08 and the denial of 12 claims. The 
Controller's listing of the claimants, amounts claimed, amounts recommended 
by the Controller's Office and the Controller's comments is attached. 

Comment 

The Controller's Office has certified that funds are available in the General 
Fund claims and judgements budget for reimbursement of the seven claims 
totaling $2,071.08. 

Recommendation 

Prepare in and report out a resolution authorizing the reimbursement of 
seven employee claims in the total amount of $2,071.08, as recommended by the 
Controller's Office. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

51 



DEC 10 '92 01 :32PM CCSF CONTROLLER'S OFFICE 
rile No. 51-92-3 



Attachment 
Page 1 of 2 



Date: December 3, 1992 

REIMBURSEMENT; FOR DAMAGED OR STOLEN PERSONAL PROPERTY OB* CITY EMPLOYEES 



Department 
Claimant 



Public Health 



Amount 
Claimed 



Amount 
Recommended 



Controllers 
Comments 



Mark Freeman 



467.90 



487.90 



Valerie Sroller 



Rickey L. Jackson 



38.34 



97.00 



38.34 



-0- 



Medical equipment 
stolen from auto 
required for work . 
No evidence of 
negligence. 

Damaged wearing 
apparel in course of 
job duties 

Deny. Loss not work 
related. 



Prank Valdez Jr. 



Mary Jo Moore 



Anna Grajeda 



Marie A. Hitchcock 



Marcella Holzman 



Mary Murphy 



Alice Hoimeoth 



350-00 



190.00 



50.00 



1,589.59 



209.55 



180.00 



118.00 



-0- 



190.00 



1,000.00 



-0- 



100.00 



-0- 



Deny . Auto not 
required for work. 

Eyeglasses damaged 
in line of duty. 

Deny . Not required 
for performance of 
job. 

Not technically an 
employee claim, 
however City liable 
for damage. Approve 
insurance 
deductible. 



Deny . No 
liability. 



City 



Allow insurance 

deductible. 

Deny . Items not 

required for 

performance of job. 



52 



DEC 10 '92 01 =33PM CCSF CONTROLLER'S OFFICE 

- 2 



ne Clark 

Icing & Traffic 
r.hard Garkus 

:ey M. Huang 



879.95 



185.84 



Attachment 
Page 2 of 2 

-0- Deny. Items not 
required for 
performance of job. 



185.84 Stolen tools covered 
by MOU. 

-0- Deny. Auto not 
required for job. 
Claim already denied 
by City Attorney. 



|£or 



rilyn Sue Lee 



524.00 



69.00 Allow calculator. 
Personal items not 
required for work. 



:er Department 

tia K. Kinna 
quired for work. 

creation and Park 

tricia A. Cull 



rues Payne 



ystal K.D. Huie 



1,000.00 



82.93 



50.00 



50.42 



-0- 



-0- 



-0- 



-0- 



Deny . 



Items nor 



Department 


Head 


di s approved . 




Department 


Head 


di » approved . 




Deny. 


N o 


department 


head 


approval . 





nicipal Railway 
lton Gee 



395.73 



-0- Auto not required 
for job. Possible 
retribution for 
discipline . 



53 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 16, 1992 

Item 18 -File 64-92-24.1 
Departments: 



Item: 



Location; 



Purpose of Lease: 

Lessor: 

Description: 



Real Estate 

Mayor's Office of Children, Youth and their Families 

Resolution authorizing an amendment to an existing lease of 
real property. 

Suite 260, 10 United Nations Plaza 

Office space for the Mayor's Office of Children, Youth and 
their Families. 

Ten United Nations Plaza Associates 

In November, 1991 the electorate approved Proposition J to 
amend the San Francisco Charter to create the San 
Francisco Children's Fund to be expended exclusively to 
provide services for children, above and beyond services 
already funded in the City's budget. The Mayor's Office of 
Children, Youth and their Families, established to 
administer the Children's Fund, currently occupies space on 
the second floor of Ten United Nations Plaza under a four 
year lease that began on October 1, 1992 and will end on 
September 30, 1996. 

Details of the current lease for this space and the proposed 
amendment to the lease are as follows: 



Square Feet (approximately) 

Monthly Rent 

Annual Rent 

Cost Per Sq. Ft. Per Month 



Current Proposed Lease As 

Lease Amendment Amended 

1,500 1,251 2,751 



$1,875 

$22,500 

$1.25 



$1,553.75 

$18,645 

$1.25 



$3,428.75 

$41,145 

$1.25 



When the current lease for space was approved, the Mayor's 
Office of Children, Youth and their Families had a staff of ten 
full-time employees. After subtracting 200 square feet 
occupied by a conference room from the approximately 1,500 
square feet currently leased, each of the ten full-time 
employees on average occupied a workspace of approximately 
130 square feet. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

54 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 16, 1992 



Comments: 



The Mayor's Office of Children, Youth and their Families 
currently has a staff of 12 full-time employees and three 
student interns that together require a thirteenth workspace 
Two additional full-time employees will be added on January 
1, 1993 and more employees will be added in the next six 
months in order to administer the selection and operations of 
additional community based operators of children's services. 
Based on 15 workspaces (12 full-time employees, a single 
workspace for the three interns and two new full-time 
employees as of January 1, 1993) and after subtracting 200 
square feet for the current conference room and 150 square 
feet for a second conference room included in the proposed 
additional space, the total 2,751 square feet of space, on 
average, would provide approximately 160 square feet per 
workspace. This average will decrease as more employees 
are hired. 

The proposed lease amendment would become effective on 
January 1, 1992 or as soon as the lessor completes tenant 
improvements and shall end on September 30, 1996, 
approximately a three year and nine month period. Tenent 
improvements include installation of partitions between 
offices, painting and improvements to restrooms to 
accommodate handicapped employees. The costs of these 
improvements will be borne by the lessor. 

1. Monthly rent includes gas, electricity, water, scavenger 
and janitorial utility costs. 

2. The current lease began on October 1, 1992. However, the 
Mayor's Office of Children, Youth and their Families has 
occupied the currently leased space and some of the proposed 
space since July 1, 1992. Rent for the 1,500 square feet of space 
currently leased was on a month-to-month basis between 
July 1, and October 1, 1992. There was no charge for the 
overflow portion of the proposed space that was occupied 
between July 1, and October 1, 1992. 

3. Prior to July 1, 1992, the single position of the Mayor's 
Office of Children, Youth and their Families occupied space 
in the Mayor's Office of Community Development offices at 10 
United Nations Plaza on a temporary basis until the creation 
of the San Francisco Children's Fund that funds the Mayor's 
Office of Children, Youth and their Families programs. 

4. The Real Estate Department reports that the fair market 
value of space at Ten United Nations Plaza is $1.25 per square 
foot per month. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

55 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 16, 1992 



5. The Real Estate Department indicates that rent for the first 
five months of the proposed lease amendment will be free 
because the lessor will realize a savings by not having to 
construct a permanent fire wall to separate the space that the 
Mayor's Office of Children, Youth and their Families 
currently occupies from the space that would have been 
occupied by another tenant, but is now proposed as additional 
space for the Mayor's Office of Children, Youth and their 
Families. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 




Harvey M. Rose 



cc: Supervisor Gonzalez 
Supervisor Migden 
Supervisor Hallinan 
President Shelley 
Supervisor Achtenberg 
Supervisor Alioto 
Supervisor Britt 
Supervisor Conroy 
Supervisor Hsieh 
Supervisor Kennedy 
Supervisor Maher 
Clerk of the Board 
Chief Administrative Officer 
Controller 
Jean Mariani 
Barbara Kolesar 
Ted Lakey 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

56 



CALENDAR - /Wfc 

SPECIAL MEETING OF 

FINANCE COMMITTEE 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 



/ 



MONDAY, DECEMBER 21, 1992 - 10:00 A.M. 



ROOM 228, CITY HALL 



PRESENT: SUPERVISORS GONZALEZ, MIGDEN, HALLINAN 
CLERK: GAIL JOHNSON 



DOT" '»'«itj5 r>-^ T 

DEC 2 2 1992 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



File 101-92-17 . [Government Funding] Ordinance appropriating $471,335, District 
Attorney, for permanent salaries, related mandatory fringe benefits (for weekend 
rebooking services). (Supervisor Gonzalez) 

ACTION: Amended. (See file for details.) Recommended as amended. New title: 
"Appropriating $438,295, District Attorney, for permanent salaries, 
related mandatory fringe benefits (for weekend rebooking services)." 

File 101-92-18 . [Government Funding] Ordinance appropriating $106,826, Municipal 
Court, for permanent salaries, related mandatory fringe benefits and professional 
services (jail overcrowding). (Supervisor Gonzalez) 

ACTION: Amended. (See file for details.) Recommended as amended. New title: 
"Appropriating $106,826, Municipal Court, for permanent salaries, 
related mandatory fringe benefits and professional services (jail 
overcrowding); placing $60,000 on reserve." 

File 102-92-8 . [Public Employment] Ordinance amending Annual Salary Ordinance, 
1992-93, Municipal Court, reflecting the addition of one position (Classification 0215 
Bail Commissioner); companion measure to File 101-92-18. (Civil Service 
Commission) 

ACTION: Recommended. 

File 101-92-19 . [Government Funding] Ordinance appropriating $4,515,011, Sheriff, 
for permanent salaries, related mandatory fringe benefits, subsistence, materials and 
supplies, and services of other departments Gail overcrowding). (Supervisor 
Gonzalez) 

ACTION: Amended. (See file for details.) Recommended as amended. New title: 
"Appropriating $3,954,879, Sheriff, for permanent salaries, related 
mandatory fringe benefits, subsistence, materials and supplies, and 
services of other departments (jail overcrowding); providing for 
ratification of action previously taken; and providing for 90-day 
reporting requirement." 

File 102-92-9 . [Public Employment] Ordinance amending Annual Salary Ordinance, 
1992-93, Sheriff's Office, reflecting the addition of twenty-four positions 
(Classifications 8304 L, Deputy Sheriff (20), 8306 L, Senior Deputy Sheriff (2) and 
8274 L, Police Cadet (2); companion measure to File 101-92-19. (Civil Service 
Commission) 

ACTION: Recommended. 



City Report 



CITY AND COUNTY 




OF SAN FRANCISCO 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 



1390 MARKET STREET. SUITE 1025 
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102 • TELEPHONE (415) 554-7642 



December 18, 1992 

TO: Finance Committee 

FROM; Budget Analyst 

SUBJECT: December 21, 1992 Special Finance Committee Meeting 

Items 1- Files 101-92-17 



Department: 
Item: 

Amount: 
Source of Funds: 
Description: 



District Attorney 

Supplemental appropriation ordinance for permanent 
salaries and related mandatory fringe benefits. 

$471,335 

General Fund General Reserve 

The District Attorney is requesting funding to pay for 
additional personnel for weekend rebooking services. These 
services have been made available to the Police Department 
since 1988, but, according to the District Attorney, such 
services can no longer be provided with existing personnel 
due to budget cuts and related staff shortages. Weekend 
rebooking services consist of a review by the District 
Attorney's Office of all felony arrests, in custody 
misdemeanor arrests and urgent requests for arrest 
warrants in order to determine if charges should be filed. 

The supplemental appropriation ordinance would allow the 
District Attorney to hire five additional positions to 
accomplish weekend rebooking services as follows: 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 21, 1992 

Annual 

Biweekly Salary at 

Add Position Salary Range Top Step 

3 8180 Principal Attorney $3,093-$3,760 $98,136 

1 1460 Legal Secretary II 1,491-1,809 47,215 

1 8146 Investigator 1,666-2,023 52,800 



Total 



The District Attorney has provided the following budget of the 
proposed supplemental appropriation which covers the 
period July 1, 1992 through June 30, 1993: 

Description Amount 

Personnel 
Permanent Salaries-Miscellaneous: 
3 8180 Principal Attorneys, Step V $294,408 
1 1460 Legal Secretary II, Step V 47,215 

1 8 146 Investigator, Step V 52.800 

Salary Subtotal $394,423 

Mandatory Fringe Benefits 76.912 

Total Personnel Costs $471,335 



The District Attorney advises that the 1992-93 approved 
budget, which required excessive salary savings imposed by 
the Mayor, and other budget reductions, resulted in the 
elimination of weekend rebookings except through voluntary 
overtime of attorneys. The District Attorney concludes that 
the use of voluntary overtime to continue the activity of 
weekend rebookings is no longer feasible, because the 
compensatory time off (one hour off for each hour spent, 
according to the District Attorney's Office) adds to the 
Department's current staff shortages, including the 
Department's decision to furlough staff attorneys and 
investigators for eight working days without pay. 

Effective November 9, 1992, the District Attorney had advised 
the then Acting Chief of Police that the District Attorney's 
daytime Felony Intake Unit will only process cases from 8:30 
a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and custody 
rebookings from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on Sundays, and will 
be closed on Saturdays and all holidays given the anticipated 
number of cases expected on Sundays. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

2 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 21, 1992 

Comments: 1. The District Attorney advises that $293,000 was 

appropriated in 1988-89 to hire three 8180 Principal 
Attorneys, 1 Legal Secretary II and 1 Investigator to initiate 
weekend booking services. However, in the following fiscal 
year, the deletion of 6 staff positions in the Prosecution 
Division (3 8176 Trial Attorneys and 5 Investigators) 
jeopardized the continuation of weekend rebooking services 
that had been initiated during the previous fiscal year, 
although the District Attorney continued to provide these 
services through voluntary overtime and personnel 
reassignments. 

2. For the District Attorney's Prosecution Division, salary 
savings went from $839,841 for 1991-92 fiscal year to $1,092,130 
for the 1992-93 fiscal year, a $252,289 increase, representing a 
30 percent increase. Such salary savings were imposed in the 
Mayor's Budget for FY 1992-93. 

3. Ms. Bridget Bane of the District Attorney's Office reports 
that weekend rebookings during the 17 month period July, 
1991 through November, 1992 resulted in the release of 2,713 
prisoners from the San Francisco Jails as follows: 



Period 
July 1991 - December 1991 
January 1992 - June 1992 
July 1992 - November 1992 
Total 







Average Number of 


Total 


Total 


Prisoner Releases 


Releases 


Weekends 


Per Weekend 


640 


26 


24.62 


1,055 


26 


40.58 


1.018 


22 


46.27 


2,713 


74 


36.66 



4. A comparison of early jail releases associated with the 
District Attorney's weekend rebooking activity and average 
daily jail overcrowding for the 17 month period between July, 
1991 and November of 1992 indicates that early jail releases, 
resulting from the District Attorney's rebooking services, 
reduces overcrowding by a consistent percentage of between 
approximately 8 to 9 percent of the total average daily 
overcrowding in the City jails, as follows: 



Period 

July 1991 - December 1991 
January 1992 - June 1992 
July 1992 - November 1992 



Average 

Daily Jail 

Overcrowding 

287 
500 
561 



Average No. 

of Weekend 
Releases From D.A. 
Rebooking Services 

24.62 
40.58 
46.27 



Percent 

Releases 

of Total 

Overcrowding 

8.58 
8.12 
8.27 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 21, 1992 

5. The District Attorney advises that the $471,335 request to 
hire five new positions would in effect be used to offset the 
budgeted amount of salary savings in the current 1992-93 
budget from 8.9 percent to 5.0 percent of total salaries in the 
District Attorney's Prosecution Division as follows: 

District Attorney's (DA) Prosecution Division FY 1992-93 Budget 

Total 
Budgeted Salary Percent 

Salaries Savings of Total 

DA Prosecution Division $12,222,765 $1,092,130 8.9 
Less: This Supplemental 

to Reduce Salary Savings 471.335 3_i9_ 

Revised Salary Savings $620,795 5.0 

6. The Family Violence Project is currently included in the 
District Attorney's 1992-93 budget. At their meeting of 
December 16, 1992, the Finance Committee reported out a 
supplemental appropriation ordinance (File 101-92-20) that 
would transfer some of the Family Violence Project functions 
from the District Attorney's Office to the Sheriffs Office. That 
supplemental appropriation ordinance will be considered by 
the Board of Supervisors on December 21, 1992. If that request 
is approved by the Board of Supervisors, the $83,277 
remaining in the District Attorney's budget that is currently 
designated for the Family Violence Project functions, that 
would be transferred to the Sheriffs Office, should be used as 
a funding source for the proposed supplemental 
appropriation request to provide weekend rebooking services 
in the District Attorney's Office. To effect this change, the 
proposed supplemental appropriation should be amended to 
reduce the funding from the General Fund General Reserve 
by $83,277 from $471,335 to $388,058 and to insert an additional 
entry to transfer the $83,277 currently budgeted in the District 
Attorney's Family Violence Project to the District Attorney's 
Prosecution Division budget. The District Attorney's Office 
states that the Mayor's Office has advised them that the 
$83,277 should remain in the District Attorney's Family 
Violence Project budget and would not be available for 
transfer to the Prosecution Division. The Budget Analyst 
believes that leaving the $83,277 in the District Attorney's 
Family Violence Project budget would be inconsistent with 
the Finance Committee's intention to transfer these Family 
Violence Project functions to the Sheriff. 

Recommendation: Reduce the proposed supplemental appropriation ordinance 
by $83,277 from $471,335 to $388,058. 

BOARD OF SI TPKRVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 21, 1992 

Items 2 and 3 - Files 101-92-18 and 102-92-8 



Department 
Item: 



Amount: 
Source of Funds: 
Description: 



Municipal Court 

Item 2 - Supplemental appropriation ordinance (File 101-92- 
18) for permanent salaries, related mandatory fringe benefits 
and professional services. 

Item 3 - Ordinance (File 102-92-8) to amend the Annual 
Salary Ordinance to create one new position. 

$106,826 

General Fund - General Reserve 

The Municipal Court is proposing two actions to help ease the 
jail overcrowding that has resulted in the City being assessed 
$2.9 million in contempt fines by the Federal Court. The 
Municipal Court is proposing to hire a Bail Commissioner 
for a six month pilot project to determine what affect a Bail 
Commissioner position would have on reducing jail 
overcrowding. 

The Municipal Court is also proposing to spend $60,000 on a 
professional services contract with a criminal justice 
consulting firm that has expertise in evaluating pretrial 
alternatives to jail sentences. 

The proposed ordinance (File 102-92-8) to amend the 1992-93 
Annual Salary Ordinance would create one new limited term 
position as follows: 

Monthly Annual 

Classification Salary Salary 

0215 L Bail Commissioner $6,423 $77,076 

The proposed Supplemental Appropriation Ordinance (File 
101-92-18) would fund the proposed new position and 
professional services contract for the period January 1, 1993 
through June 30, 1993 as follows: 

Personnel 

0215 L Bail Commissioner $38,540 

Mandatory Fringe Benefits 8.286 

Subtotal -Personnel $46,826 

Professional Services 60.000 

Total Proposed Supplemental Appropriation $106,826 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

i)ui\/ i L v r AVAi vcrr 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 21, 1992 

Comments: 1. In November 1992, the Board of Supervisors approved a 

resolution declaring the intent of the Board to establish a Bail 
Commissioner position for the Municipal Court (File 198-92- 
3). The proposed Bail Commissioner position would be a 
limited term (L) six month position. During this period, the 
Municipal Court would operate a six month pilot project to 
determine the impact of the new Bail Commissioner position 
on reductions in jail overcrowding. If the Bail Commissioner 
has an impact in reducing jail overcrowding, the Municipal 
Court would request that the position be made permanent in 
the 1993-94 budget. 

2. When the Board of Supervisors approved the resolution 
declaring intent to establish the Bail Commissioner position 
in November 1992, the new position was intended to be funded 
out of the General Fund Litigation Reserve which was 
established to meet the terms of the Jail Overcrowding 
Consent Decree. However, because the Sheriff has requested 
a separate supplemental appropriation of approximately $4.5 
million (see File 101-92-19 Item 4 of this report), from the 
Litigation Reserve account, the source of funds for the 
proposed Bail Commissioner position is now the General 
Fund - General Reserve. 

3. As noted above, the Municipal Court also proposes to spend 
$60,000 to hire a criminal justice consulting firm that is an 
expert in evaluating pretrial alternatives to jail sentences. At 
this time, the Municipal Court has not yet selected a 
contractor and, therefore, information is not available on the 
MBE/WBE/LBE status of the contractor or the contract details 
and the hourly rates of the contractor. Further, the 
Municipal Court has applied for a $20,000 grant from the 
National Institute of Corrections (NIC) for an assessment of 
pretrial procedures, including a review of alternative pretrial 
release options, and an assessment of the impact of the Bail 
Commissioner Pilot Project. This $20,000 grant, if received, is 
intended to partially offset the proposed $60,000 expenditure 
for professional services. The proposed supplemental 
appropriation ordinance (File 101-92-18) should be amended 
to place the $60,000 on reserve pending the selection of the 
contractor and submission of detailed contract cost data and 
pending receipt of the NIC grant. 

4. The proposed supplemental appropriation ordinance (File 
101-92-18) includes $8,286 for mandatory fringe benefits for 
the 0215 Bail Commissioner position. However, since the 
proposed position is a temporary L position lasting only six 
months, no fringe benefits would be paid for this position. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 21. 1992 

Therefore, the proposed supplemental appropriation 
ordinance should be amended to reduce Mandatory Fringe 
Benefits by 88,286 from $8,286 to $0. 

Recommendations: 1. Amend the proposed supplemental appropriation 
ordinance (File 101-92-18) to reserve $60,000 for Professional 
Services pending the selection of the contractor, contract cost 
details, hourly rates, MBE/WBE status of the contractor and 
status of the pending NIC grant. 

2. Amend the proposed supplemental appropriation 
ordinance (File 101-92-18) to reduce Mandatory Fringe 
benefits by $8,286 from $8,286 to $0. 

3. Approve the proposed ordinance (File 101-92-18) as 
amended. 

4. Approve the proposed amendment to the Annual Salary 
Ordinance (File 102-92-8). 



KOARDOFSlTPKKVLSOltS 
HI IIK;ET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 21, 1992 

Items 4 and 5 - Files 101-92-19 and 102-92-9 



Department 
Items: 



Amount: 



Sheriff 

Item 4 - Supplemental appropriation ordinance (File 101-92- 
19) for permanent salaries, related mandatory fringe 
benefits, subsistence, materials and supplies, and services of 
other departments. 

Item 5 - Ordinance (File 102-92-9) to amend the Annual 
Salary Ordinance to create 24 new positions. 

$4,515,011 



Source of Funds: General Fund Litigation Reserve 

Description: On October 15, 1992 the Federal Court imposed fines on the 

City for jail overcrowding based on $300 per prisoner per day 
for total cumulative fines of $3,829,700 for the eleven month 
period from January through November, 1992. A description 
of these fines and the average daily overcrowding of prisoners 
are as follows: 

Average 
Amount Number Daily 

Period of Fines of Davs Overcrowding 



January - August 
September 
October 
November * 
Total 



$2,953,100 
161,000 
268,000 
447.600 

$3,829,700 



244 

30 

31 

_30_ 

335 



40.34 
17.89 
28.82 
49.73 



Preliminary estimate, to be verified by U.S. Court Special Master. 

The $3,829,700 in fines paid by the City to the Federal Court 
was put into a special escrow account by the Federal Court. 
Mr. James Harrigan of the Sheriffs Office reports that a 
portion of monies in the special escrow account may be 
returned to the City to help alleviate jail overcrowding. 

The fines, however, only represent the overcrowding of 
prisoners at one of the four City Jails (County Jail No. 1) and 
do not reflect total jail overcrowding in the City. According to 
data provided by the Sheriff on daily prisoner counts since 
July 1992, between 480 and 632 prisoners daily, excluding 
weekends and holidays, exceed the total City's jail capacity of 
1,652. If the Federal Court were to assess fines on the total 
excess prisoner populations at all four of the City's jails, the 



HOARD OF SUPKKV1SOHS 
HUIX.'LT ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 21, 1992 



daily fine could be between $144,000 and $189,600 based on 480 
and 632 prisoners respectively. 

In order to alleviate the overcrowding in the City's jails, the 
Sheriff proposes the additional new staff to transport 
prisoners from the City's jails to Alameda County jails (the 
City has a previously approved contract with Alameda 
County to purchase beds at Alameda County's jails). The 
Sheriff is also proposing two new programs, the Contract Bed 
Coordination Program and the Residential Bed Placement 
Screening Unit, to mitigate overcrowding. 

The proposed ordinance (File 102-92-9) to amend the 1992-93 
Annual Salary Ordinance would create 24 new positions 
including 19 new positions to transport prisoners to and from 
the Alameda County Jail, and 5 new positions to establish 
two special units to assist in placing prisoners in alternative 
programs including Home Detention, Sheriffs Work 
Alternative Program (SWAP), Work Furlough, County 
Parole and residential programs, as follows: 



No. Classification 

Expansion of the Use of Alameda County Jail 
1 8306 Senior Deputy Sheriff 
18 8304 Deputy Sheriff 

Contract Bed Coordination 

1 8306 Senior Deputy Sheriff 

1 8274 Police Cadet 

Residential Bed Placement Screening Unit 

2 8304 Deputy Sheriff 
1_ 8274 Police Cadet 
24 

The proposed supplemental appropriation ordinance (File 
101-92-19) would fund the proposed 24 new positions for six 
months from 1/93 to 6/93, subsistence costs for 12 months and 
other costs as follows: 

Personnel 
Permanent Salaries-Miscellaneous: 

1 8306 Senior Deputy Sheriff ( 12.8 B WPP @ $1,827) $23,386 

18 8304 Deputy Sheriff (12.8 BWPP@ $1,499) 345,370 

1 8306 Senior Deputy Sheriff (13 BWPP @ $1,827)* 23,751 

2 8304 Deputy Sheriff (13 BWPP @ $1,499)* 38,974 
2 8274 Police Cadet (13 BWPP @ $822)* 21,372 

Mandatory Fringe Benefits 49.099 

Subtotal-Personnel (24) $ 501,952 

* The Sheriff is requesting two additional workdays or 13.0 BWPP total. 

BOARD OF SI JPKRVTSOT^ S 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Biweekly 

Salary 

Range 


Annual 

Salary At 

Top Step 


$1,580-1,918 
1,429-1,731 


$50,060 
45,179 


1,580-1,918 
822-822 


50,060 
21,454 


1,429-1,731 
822-822 


45,179 
21,454 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 21, 1992 



Subsistence Costs 

• Payment for Current Beds at Alameda Jail $921,891 

• Expanded Use of Walden House, (Alternative 

Housing) 20 beds x $60 per day x 273 days 327,600 

• Expanded Use of Milestones Housing (Alternative 

Housing) 25 beds x $45 per day x 273 days 307,125 

• Expanded Use of Alameda Jail (Additional 

Floor) 121 beds x $63.10 per day x 181 days 1,381,953 

• Residential Community Placement Beds 

100 beds x $55 per day x 180 days 990,000 

Subtotal- Subsistence 3,928,569 

Other Costs 
Uniforms ($1,710 x 19 personnel)* 32,490 

Safety Supplies 10,000 

Building Repair (Sallyport Security) 42.000 

Subtotal-Other Costs 84.490 

Total $4,515,011 

* see explanation below under other costs 

Expand the Use of Alameda County Jail 

The proposed staffing (18 Deputy Sheriffs and 1 Senior Deputy 
Sheriff) to expand the use of Alameda County Jail is based on 
a 5 day work week of 12 hours each day or a total of 60 hours 
per week. Therefore, 18 full time (40 hours per week) Deputy 
Sheriff positions are required in order to have 12 Deputy 
Sheriff positions on duty at all times. A Senior Deputy Sheriff 
will supervise this operation. The distribution of 12 Deputy 
Sheriff and 1 Senior Deputy Sheriff positions would be as 
follows: 

County Jail #2: 2 Deputy Sheriff positions to process and 
house additional prisoners going to and from the Alameda 
County Jail; 2 Deputy Sheriff positions to identify, classify 
and screen prisoners and to select eligible prisoners for San 
Bruno and Alameda, prepare paperwork and act as a liaison 
with medical and psychology staff; 1 Deputy Sheriff position 
to cover increased holding cell area for prisoners being 
transported to and from Alameda County Jail and San Bruno 
Jails (total of 5 Deputy Sheriff positions). 

County Jail #3: 2 Deputy Sheriff positions to process 
prisoners coming from Alameda County Jail back to San 
Bruno Jail. Processing includes strip searches, property 
searches of personal belongings and related paperwork; 1 
Deputy Sheriff position to identify, classify and screen and to 
select prisoners scheduled for movement and to prepare 
necessary paperwork (total of 3 Deputy Sheriff DO litions). 

BOARD OF SIH'KUVISPHS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

in 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 21, 1992 



Transport of Prisoners between Jail Facilities and Courts: 4 
Deputy Sheriff positions and 1 Senior Deputy Sheriff position 
to transport all prisoners between the Hall of Justice, San 
Bruno and Alameda which includes court appearances 
including court appearances resulting in a bail release, 
special transports pursuant to court order and weekend 
transports from Alameda to the Hall of Justice for interviews 
by the Public Defender's staff (total of 4 Deputy Sheriff 
positions and 1 Senior Deputy Sheriff position). 

Contract Bed Coordination 

The proposed staffing (1 Senior Deputy Sheriff position and 1 
Police Cadet) would insure optimal use of various residential 
placements, track and report success and failure rates to the 
Sheriff, Courts and other interested parties, evaluate 
effectiveness of residential treatment programs, recommend 
improvements to the programs, mediate contract disputes 
and monitor contract compliance and seek out other 
appropriate placements and act as a liaison with other 
residential treatment programs. 

Residential Bed Placement Screening Unit 

The proposed staffing (2 Deputy Sheriff positions and 1 Police 
Cadet) would create a Classification Screening Unit to 
systematically identify, classify and individually screen all 
sentenced and unsentenced prisoners for alternative 
program placement. Classification and screening of each 
prisoner includes obtaining current offense status, criminal 
and personal history and current personal characteristics 
and problems. Individual interviews with prisoners will be 
required. Officers will coordinate the transfer of eligible 
prisoners from the county jail to Home Detention, Sheriffs 
Work Alternative Program (SWAP), Work Furlough, County 
Parole, Residential Treatment Programs and other 
appropriate placements. 

Payment of Current Beds at Alameda Jail 

The proposed supplemental appropriation includes costs 
already incurred for the housing of prisoners at Alameda 
Jail because the Sheriffs 1992-93 budget is not sufficient to 
meet the increased need for beds to avoid overcrowding. The 
proposed supplemental appropriation also includes future 
costs to be incurred for the housing of prisoners at Alameda 
Jail through June 30, 1993. The Sheriff is paying for 230 beds 
beginning June 26, 1992 and 240 beds from October 23, 1992 

BOARD OF SI JPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

11 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 21, 1992 



through June 30, 1993. A distribution of these costs are as 

follows: 

Payment for Current Beds at Alameda Jail includes: 
Overage costs for 5 days during FY 1991-92 

(230 beds x 63. 10 per bed per day x 5 days) 72,565 

Difference FY 1992-93, 230 actual beds vs. 200 

budgeted beds, (30 beds x 63. 10 x 365 days) 690,945 

Add 10 beds (from 230 to 240 total beds) beginning 

10-23/92 (10 beds x 63.10x251 days) 158.381 

Subtotal $921,891 

The Sheriff is paying for 230 beds beginning June 26, 1992 
and 240 beds beginning October 23, 1992. Costs totaling 
$460,000 ($72,565 + $344,526 + $42,909) of the proposed 
$921,891 that have been expended prior to December 30, 1992 
should be approved retroactively as indicated herewith: 



Subsistence Cost 
Categories 

Overage Costs for Five Days 
during FY 1991-92 
Difference between 230 Actual Beds 
and 200 Budgeted Beds 
Additional 10 Beds increasing 
Total Beds from 230 to 240 Beds 



Period 


Period 




7/1/92-12/29/92 


12/30/92 - 6/30/93 


Total 


$72^65 


$ 


$72,565 


344^26 


346,419 


690,945 


42.909 


115472 


15&3S1 


$460,000 


$461,891 


$921^91 



Totals 

Expanded Use of Walden House 

The proposed supplemental appropriation provides for 
increasing the number of residential treatment beds to 20 
beds per day from October 1, 1992 through June 30, 1993 for a 
total cost of $327,600 (20 beds x 60.00 per bed per day x 273 
days) of which $108,000 was expended prior to December 30, 
1992 and therefore should be approved retroactively. 

Expanded Use of Milestones Housing 

The proposed supplemental appropriation provides for 
continuing the use of 25 residential treatment beds per day 
from October 1, 1992 through June 30, 1993 for a total cost of 
$307,125 (25 beds x 45.00 per bed per day x 273 days) of which 
$101,250 was expended prior to December 30, 1992 and 
therefore should be approved retroactively 



HOARD OF SUI'KKVIS P 1 £ 
BUDOirr ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 21, 1992 



Expanded Use of Alameda Jail (Additional Floor) 

The proposed supplemental appropriation provides for an 
additional 121 beds per day at Alameda Jail to alleviate jail 
overcrowding in San Francisco. The proposed funding of 
$1,381,953 (121 beds x 63.10 per bed per day x 181 days) would 
use the additional beds from January 1, 1993 through June 
30, 1993 (see Comment 1). 

Residential Community Placement Beds 

The Sheriff proposes to use Residential Community 
Placement Beds for Pre-Trial detainees and sentenced 
prisoners for the six month period, January through June 
1993. The average daily cost for a contracted bed is $55.00. 
The Sheriff estimates that between 75 to 100 beds are available 
which can be filled within a ninety day period for a total cost 
of $990,000 (100 beds x 55.00 per bed per day x 180 days, see 
Comment 2). 

Other Costs 

The proposed supplemental appropriation includes $32,490 
for uniforms including Class A, B and C uniforms (A - 
special events, B - for use as court bailiffs and C - jump suit 
for custody work at the jails), plus gun, gun holster, speed 
loader, belt handcuff with case, mace container with holder, 
two batons (26 and 36 inch lengths), bullet proof vest and 
flashlight with holder. Because the cost of the uniforms in 
the amount of $32,490 is for only 19 additional personnel (19 x 
$1,710) as identified in the proposed legislation, the Sheriff 
will be required to identify funding for an additional $8,550 (5 
x $1,710) for the remaining five personnel to be added by the 
subject legislation from other resources. 

The proposed supplemental appropriation includes $10,000 
for safety equipment to transport prisoners between the jails, 
the Courts and Alameda County Jail. The safety equipment 
includes handcuffs, belly chains, leg irons and braces and 
other restraint gear need for prisoner transportation. 

The proposed supplemental appropriation includes $42,000 
for building improvements at County Jail #3 to improve 
Sallyport Security at County Jail #3 (San Bruno) to facilitate 
rapid and safe transport of as many as 300 prisoners per day. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

13 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 21, 1992 



Comments: 1. In reviewing the proposed expanded use of Alameda Jail 

with the Budget Analyst, the Sheriff indicates that more lead 
time is required to add 121 beds at the Alameda Jail. Revising 
the starting date from January 1, 1993 to January 23, 1993 as 
recommended by the Sheriff, results in a reduced need in the 
subsistence activity cost of $167,972 from $1,381,953 to 
$1,213,981 (121 beds x 63.10 per bed per day x 22 days). 

2. The Sheriff also concurs with the Budget Analyst, that, 
since new personnel cannot be hired before December 29, 
1992, the Residential Community Placement Beds cannot 
begin and be fully operational for at least 30 days. Under 
these circumstances the Sheriff concurs that the subsistence 
portion of this program cannot begin until 2/1/93 including 
100 beds on that date to be distributed between two or more 
community providers. Therefore the cost of this activity 
should be reduced $165,000 from $990,000 to $825,000 (100 beds 
x 55.00 x 150 days). 

3. A summary of the above recommended revisions 
(Comments 1 and 2) to the Subsistence budget of the proposed 
supplemental appropriation is as follows: 



Category 

Additional Floor at 
Alameda Jail 

Residential Community 
Placement Beds 

Total 



Original 



Proposed 
Revision 



$1,381,953 $1,213,981 



Budget Analyst's 

Recommended 

Reductions 



$167,972 



990,000 



825.000 



$2,371,953* $2,038,981 



165.000 
$332,972 



* Total requested Subsistence Costs equal $3,928,569. 

4. A summary of the subsistence cost to be approved 
retroactively as detailed in the above description of the 
proposed supplemental appropriation is as follows: 



Subsistence Cost 
Categories 



Amount to be 
Approved Retroactively 



Payment of Current Beds at 

Alameda Jail 
Expanded Use of Walden House 
Expanded Use of Milestones Housing 
Total 



$460,000 
108,000 
101.250 

$669 



BOARD OF SUPKKVISPHS 
BUDCKT ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 21, 1992 

5. According to Mr. John Madden of the Controller's Office, 
the General Fund Litigation Reserve Fund includes an 
amount of $4,500,000 which has been set aside for the purpose 
of mitigating jail overcrowding. The current balance in this 
Fund, excluding this $4,500,000, is $5,300,000 which Mr. 
Madden advises is committed to the payment of several 
individual claims against the City that are currently 
pending. If the Board of Supervisors accepts the Budget 
Analyst's recommended reductions of $332,972 (Comment 3) 
to the proposed supplemental appropriation, the set-aside of 
$4,500,000 for mitigating jail overcrowding in the General 
Fund Litigation Reserve would have a balance of $317,961 for 
other eligible costs as follows: 

Set Aside in General Fund Litigation Reserve 

for Jail Overcrowding $4,500,000 

Supplemental Appropriation (subject of this request) $4,515,011 
Less: Budget Analyst's Recommended Reductions 332,972 

4.182.039 

Balance of Set-aside for Jail Overcrowding $ 317,961 

6. The proposed supplemental would provide for 49,794 
prisoner days (506 total beds) at either Alameda County Jail 
(361 total beds) or in alternative residential housing facilities 
(145 total beds) as of December 30, 1992 or as indicated for a 
later starting date. If the situation were such that all of these 
beds were needed but not available, the Federal Court could 
fine the City a total of $14,938,200 (49,794 prisoner days x $300 
per day fine). 

Recommendations: 1. Amend the proposed supplemental appropriation 
ordinance (File 101-92-19) to reduce funding for Subsistence 
Costs by $332,972 from $3,928,569 to $3,595,597 as detailed in 
Comment Nos. 1, 2 and 3 above. Further, amend the 
proposed supplemental appropriation ordinance by 
approving $669,250 of the amended $3,595,597 in Subsistence 
Costs retroactively as detailed in Comment 4 above. Approve 
the proposed supplemental appropriation ordinance as 
amended. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

15 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 21, 1992 



2. Approve the proposed ordinance (File 102-92-9) to amend 
the Annual Salarv Ordinance. 




Harvey M. Rose 



Supervisor Gonzalez 
Supervisor Migden 
Supervisor Hallinan 
President Shelley 
Supervisor Achtenberg 
Supervisor Alioto 
Supervisor Britt 
Supervisor Conroy 
Supervisor Hsieh 
Supervisor Kennedy 
Supervisor Maher 
Clerk of the Board 
Chief Administrative Officer 
Controller 
Jean Mariani 
Barbara Kolesar 
Ted Lakey 



BOARD OK SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



BOARD of SUPERVISORS 




DECEMBER 16, 1992 



City Hall 

San Francisco 94102 

554-5184 



DOCI 1MFMTS DEPT: 
DEC 2 1 1992 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 






NOTICE OF CANCELLED MEETING 
FINANCE COMMITTEE 



NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the regularly scheduled 
meeting of the Finance Committee for Wednesday, December 
23, 1992, at 2:00 p.m., has been cancelled. 

The next regular meeting of the Finance Committee will 
be held on Wednesday, December 30 1992, at 2:00 p.m., in 
the Room 228, City Hall. 

Please note that the Finance Committee will hold a 
special meeting on Monday, December 21, 1992, at 10:00 
a.m., in Room 228, City Hall. 



FINANCE COMMITTEE 
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
ROOM 235, CITY HALL 
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102 



IMPORTANT 
HEARING NOTICE 



0152 



SF Public Library (2) 
Document Section 



CALENDAR 

SPECIAL MEETI NG O F 

FINANCE COMMITTEE 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 



MONDAY, DECEMBER 21, 1992 - 10:00 A.M. ROOM 228, CITY HALL 

MEMBERS: SUPERVISORS GONZALEZ, MIGDEN, HALLINAN 
CLERK: GAIL JOHNSON 



1. File 101-92-17 . [Government Funding] Ordinance appropriating $471,335, District 
Attorney, for permanent salaries, related mandatory fringe benefits (for weekend 
rebooking services). (Supervisor Gonzalez) 

ACTION: 

2. File 101-92-18 . [Government Funding] Ordinance appropriating $106,826, Municipal 
Court, for permanent salaries, related mandatory fringe benefits and professional 
services (jail overcrowding). (Supervisor Gonzalez) 

ACTION: 

3. File 102-92-8 . [Public Employment] Ordinance amending Annual Salary Ordinance, 
1992-93, Municipal Court, reflecting the addition of one position (Classification 0215 
L Bail Commissioner); companion measure to File 101-92-18. (Civil Service 
Commission) 

ACTION: 

4. File 101-92-19 . [Government Funding] Ordinance appropriating $4,515,011, Sheriff, 
for permanent salaries, related mandatory fringe benefits, subsistence, materials and 
supplies, and services of other departments (jail overcrowding). (Supervisor 
Gonzalez) 

ACTION: 

5. File 102-92-9 . [Public Employment] Ordinance amending Annual Salary Ordinance, 
1992-93, Sheriff's Office, reflecting the addition of twenty-four positions 
(Classifications 8304 L, Deputy Sheriff (20), 8306 L, Senior Deputy Sheriff (2) and 
8274 L, Police Cadet (2); companion measure to File 101-92-19. (Civil Service 
Commission) 

ACTION: 



fa 

r o o\ MEETING OF 

^* ^FINANCE COMMITTEE 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 



A LEND A R- Soft's '^-k*^ 



<d 



CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 



WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 30, 1992 - 2:00 P.M. ROOM 228, CITY HALL 

PRESENT: SUPERVISORS GONZALEZ AND HALLINAN 

ABSENT: SUPERVISOR MIGDEN 

CLERK: GAIL JOHNSON 

NOTE: Copies of the Budget Analyst's Report will be available for review on the 
counter in the Office of the Clerk of the Board, Room 235, City Hall, 
10:00 a.m., the date of the meeting. 

CONSENT CALENDAR 

1. All matters listed hereunder constitute a Consent Calendar, are considered to be 
routine by the Finance Committee, and will be acted upon by a single roll call vote 
of the Committee. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a 
member of the Committee or a member of the public so requests, in which event the 
matter shall be removed from the Consent Calendar and considered as a separate 
item. 

(a) File 28-92-13 . [Airport Administration] Resolution approving a declaration of 
emergency, emergency repairs, power distribution system, plot 7 and vicinity , # 
Airport Contract No. 3201, San Francisco International Airport - $220,000. 
(Airports Commission) 

ACTION: Amended on lines 4 and 19 by replacing "$220,000.00" with 

"$161,650.24". Recommended as amended. New title: "Approving 
a declaration of emergency, emergency repairs, power distribution 
system, plot 7 and vicinity, Airport Contract No. 3201, San 
Francisco International Airport - $161,650.24." (To Board as a 
Committee Report for consideration on January 4, 1993.) 



JAN 41993 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



(b) File 147-92-7 . [Grant - State Funds] Resolution authorizing the San Francisco 
Public Library to apply for, accept and expend funds not to exceed $65,528 
available through the California State Library from Title I of the Library 
Services and Construction Act for Major Urban Resource Libraries for Fiscal 
Year 1992/93. (Public Library) 

ACTION: Amended on page 1, lines 2 and 20, after "expend", by adding 

"retroactively". Further amended on page 1, at the end of line 5, 
by adding "waiving indirect costs". Recommended as amended. 
New title: "Authorizing the San Francisco Public Library to apply 
for, accept and expend, retroactively, funds not to exceed $65,528 
available through the California State Library from Title I of the 
Library Services and Construction Act for Major Urban Resource 
Libraries for Fiscal Year 1992/93; waiving indirect costs." (To 
Board as a Committee Report for consideration on January 4, 
1993.) 

(c) File 147-92-8 . [Grant - Private Corporate Funds] Resolution authorizing the 
City Librarian to apply for equipment valued at $405,416.85 available from the 
Corporate Contributions Committee of Digital Equipment Corporation for 
creating the AIDS Library /Information Network; waiving indirect costs. 
(Public Library) 

ACTION: Continued to January 13, 1993, meeting. 

(d) File 101-90-121.3 . [Release of Funds] Requesting release of reserved funds, 
Public Utilities Commission, Water Department's 1991 Series-A Revenue Bond, 
in the of amount 10.5 million, for the San Andreas Pipeline No. 3 Relining 
Project. (Public Utilities Commission) 

ACTION: Hearing held. Release of $6 million recommended. Filed. 

REGULAR CALENDAR 

2. File 69-92-1 . [Supplemental Appropriation Request] Motion directing the Clerk of 
the Board to submit to his Honor, the Mayor, a request that the Mayor submit a 
supplemental appropriation of $30,802 to the Board of Supervisors for services of the 
Budget Analyst, using funds which have accumulated in the Cable Television Access 
and Development Fund. (Supervisor Hallinan) 

ACTION: Recommended. (To Board as a Committee Report for consideration on 
January 4, 1993.) 

3. File 97-92-40 . [Veterans Affairs Officer] Ordinance amending Administrative Code 
by adding Section 5. 108. A to establish a County Veteran Service Officer within the 
Office of the Chief Administrative Officer. (Supervisor Gonzalez) 

(Transferred from City Services Committee 9/15/92 - Fiscal Impact) 
(Cont'd from 10/7/92) 

ACTION: Recommended. (To Board as a Committee Report for consideration on 
January 4, 1993.) 



File 197-92-5 . [Cultural Affairs Task Force Implementation Committee] Ordinance 
constituting the Cultural Affairs Task Force Final Report Committee as the task 
force's implementation committee, with the addition of the Chief Administrative 
Officer or his representative, for the purpose of developing a legislative proposal for 
the creation of a Cultural Equity Endowment Fund Program and for the purpose of 
developing proposals to implement other recommendations of the Cultural Affairs 
Task Force final report. (Supervisor Hallinan) 
(Cont'd from 12/16/92) 

ACTION: Amendment of the Whole, as presented by Supervisor Hallinan, adopted. 
Recommended as amended. New title: "Constituting the Cultural 
Affairs Task Force Final Report Committee as the task force's 
implementation committee, provided that the Chief Administrative 
Officer or his representative and the Director of Cultural Affairs or her 
representative shall serve ex officio without vote, for the purpose of 
developing a legislative proposal for the creation of a Cultural Equity 
Endowment Fund Program and for the purpose of developing proposals to 
implement other recommendations of the Cultural Affairs Task Force 
final report." (Add Supervisor Gonzalez as co-sponsor.) (To Board as a 
Committee Report for consideration on January 4, 1993.) 

File 127-92-11 . [Hotel Tax] Ordinance amending the San Francisco Municipal Code, 
Part III, Section 515 to create a Cultural Equity Endowment Fund by reducing the 
percentage of the Hotel Tax allocated to the Moscone Convention Center, Brooks 
Hall, Civic Auditorium, Convention and Visitors Bureau, War Memorial, Publicity and 
Advertising Fund, and Nonrecurring Events Fund and by capturing a percentage of 
the General Fund, and to provide that at such time as Hotel Tax funds are no longer 
necessary for Candlestick Park as set forth herein, a portion of such funds be 
allocated to the Chief Administrative Officer for certain publicity and advertising 
purposes. (Supervisor Hallinan) 

(Cont'd from 12/16/92) 

ACTION: Amendment of the Whole bearing same title (as presented by Supervisor 
Hallinan) adopted Amended on page 1, line 10, by deleting "certain". 
Further amended on page 1, at the end of line 11, by adding "for the 
arts". Recommended as amended. New title: "Amending the San 
Francisco Municipal Code, Part ID, Section 515 to create a Cultural 
Equity Endowment Fund by reducing the percentage of the Hotel Tax 
allocated to the Moscone Convention Center, Brooks Hall, Civic 
Auditorium, Convention and Visitors Bureau, War Memorial, Publicity and 
Advertising Fund, and Nonrecurring Events Fund and by capturing a 
percentage of the General Fund, and to provide that at such time as 
Hotel Tax funds are no longer necessary for Candlestick Park as set forth 
herein, a portion of such funds be allocated to the Chief Administrative 
Officer for publicity and advertising purposes for the arts." (Add 
Supervisor Gonzalez as co-sponsor.) (To Board as a Committee Report 
for consideration on January 4, 1993.) 



6. File 127-92-10 . [Fictitious Business Name Filing Requirement] Ordinance 
amending Part in, Municipal Code, by adding Section 75.1 to require persons filing a 
statement of fictitious business name pursuant to California Business and Professions 
Code Section 17900 et seq. to provide proof of compliance, including payment of all 
appropriate license fees, with all applicable sections of Article 2 of Part III of the 
Municipal Code. (Supervisor Kennedy) 

(Cont'd from 12/9/92) 

ACTION: Continued to January 13, 1993, meeting. 

7. File 101-92-23 . [Government Funding] Ordinance appropriating $1,400,000, San 
Francisco General Hospital, for capital improvement project (Ward 14 and 15 
renovation). (Supervisor Gonzalez) 

ACTION: Amended. (See file for details.) Recommended as amended. New title: 
"Appropriating $1,400,000, San Francisco General Hospital, for capital 
improvement project (Ward 14 and 15 renovation); placing $1,140,000 on 
reserve." 

8. File 101-92-24 . [Government Funding] Ordinance appropriating $379,000, San 
Francisco General Hospital, for capital improvement project (AIDS ward 
renovation). (Supervisor Gonzalez) 

ACTION: Amended. (See file for details.) Recommended as amended. New title: 
"Appropriating $379,000, San Francisco General Hospital, for capital 
improvement project (AIDS ward renovation); placing $292,435 on 
reserve." (To Board as a Committee Report for consideration on January 
4, 1993.) 

9. File 101-92-28 . [Government Funding] Ordinance appropriating $10,128,907, 
Department of Public Health, General Fund, medical revenues (SB 855), transfer to 
other funds, San Francisco General Hospital, other current services (SB 855). RO 
#92124 (Controller) 

ACTION: Recommended. (To Board as a Committee Report for consideration on 
January 4, 1993.) 

10. File 65-92-11 . [Lease of Property] Ordinance authorizing and approving lease of 
City-owned property at 1800 Oakdale Avenue (southeast Community Facility, 
northwest corner of Phelps Street and Oakdale Avenue) to the San Francisco 
Community College District. (Real Estate Department) 

(Cont'd from 11/4/92) 

ACTION: Recommended. (To Board as a Committee Report for consideration on 
January 4, 1993.) 

11. File 62-92-3 . [Coit Tower Facility Lease] Ordinance approving a five-year lease 
with Frederick Lo for management and operation of the Coit Tower Facility in San 
Francisco, California. (Recreation and Park Department) 

ACTION: Continued to January 13, 1993, meeting. 



12. File 62-92-4 . [Airport - Concession Lease] Ordinance approving "Boarding Area "E" 
Principal Concession Retail Lease" between the Delstar Group and the City and 
County of San Francisco, acting by and through its Airports Commission. (Airports 
Commission) 

ACTION: Recommended. (To Board as a Committee Report for consideration on 
January 4, 1993.) 

13. File 65-92-20 . [Termination of Lease Agreement] Ordinance approving termination 
of lease agreement between Continental Grain Company and the City and County of 
San Francisco, operating by and through the San Francisco Port Commission for use 
of the space at Pier 90 Grain Terminal. (Port) 

ACTION: Recommended. (To Board as a Committee Report for consideration on 
January 4, 1993.) 

14. File 97-92-70 . [Public Health Contracts] Ordinance amending Administrative Code 
by adding Section 19A.32 to permit the Department of Public Health to enter into 
indemnification agreements with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission 
enabling the Department of Public Health to participate in the Homeless Outreach 
study at Transbay Transit Terminal. (Department of Public Health) 

ACTION: Recommended. (To Board as a Committee Report for consideration on 
January 4, 1993.) 

15. File 101-92-21 . [Government Funding] Ordinance appropriating $524,636, 
Department of Social Services, for permanent salaries and related mandatory fringe 
benefits and day care assistance. RO #92100 (Controller) 

ACTION: Continued to January 13, 1993, meeting. 

16. File 101-92-22 . [Government Funding] Ordinance appropriating $206,729, Public 
Administrator, for various purposes, for the creation of four positions; companion 
measure to File 102-92-4. RO #92029 (Controller) 

ACTION: Amendment of the Whole (as presented by the Controller) adopted. 

Recommended as amended. New title: "Appropriating $131,240, Public 
Administrator, for various purposes, for the creation of four positions." 
(To Board as a Committee Report for consideration on January 4, 1993.) 

17. File 102-92-4 . [Public Employment] Ordinance Amending Annual Salary Ordinance, 
1992-93, Office of the Public Administrator/Guardian, reflecting the addition of 
four positions (Classifications 1446 Secretary II (1) 4230 Estate Investigator (2) and 
4231 Senior Estate Investigator (1). (Civil Service Commission) 

ACTION: Recommended. (To Board as a Committee Report for consideration on 
January 4, 1993.) 



18. File 101-92-25 . [Government Funding] Ordinance appropriating $60,265, Rent 
Board, for permanent salaries; and rescinding $60,265 in permanent salaries 
appropriations; companion measure to File 102-92-10. RO #92127 (Controller) 

ACTION: Amended on lines 4, 13, 14 and 15 by replacing "$60,265" with "$23,460". 
Recommended as amended. New title: "Appropriating $23,460, Rent 
Board, for permanent salaries; and rescinding $23,460 in permanent 
salaries appropriations." 

19. File 102-92-10 . [Public Employment] Ordinance amending Annual Salary Ordinance, 
1992-93, Rent Arbitration Board, reflecting the addition of one position 
(Classification AA44 N Senior Hearing Officer). (Civil Service Commission) 

ACTION: Recommended. 

20. File 97-92-4 . [Sale of Health Materials] Ordinance amending the San Francisco 
Administrative Code by adding Section 8.35 to authorize the Director of Public 
Health to sell health-related materials and establishing a fund for revenues derived 
from such sales. (Supervisor Alioto) 

(Transferred from City Services Committee 12/15/92 - Fiscal Impact) 

ACTION: Continued to January 13, 1993, meeting. 

21 File 172-92-20 . [Indemnification Agreement] Resolution authorizing an indemnity 
provision in the agreement between the City and County of San Francisco and the 
County of San Mateo. (Public Utilities Commission) 

ACTION: Recommended. (To Board as a Committee Report for consideration on 
January 4, 1993.) 



CITY AND COUNTY 




City 1\eport 

OF SAN FRANCISCO 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 
1390 MARKET STREET, SUITE 1025 
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102 • TELEPHONE (415) 554-7642 



December 28, 1992 



TO: Finance Committee 

FROM: Budget Analyst 

SUBJECT: December 30, 1992 Finance Committee Meeting 



Item la - File 28-92-13 



Item: 



Amount: 



Resolution approving a declaration of emergency and 
emergency repairs for the power distribution system, Plot 7 
and vicinity, San Francisco International Airport. 

$220,000 



Source of Funds: Airport Utilities Maintenance Fund 

Description: The Airport reports that On October 22, 1992 a failure 

occurred in the electrical power distribution system which 
supplies electricity to four hangar buildings located at the 
Airport's Plot 7. The failure of the power distribution system 
caused a power outage to the four hangar buildings, which 
are occupied by Butler Aviation, American Airlines, and 
Quantas Airlines. On December 1, 1992 the Airports 
Commission declared an emergency concerning the failure 
of this power distribution system. 

In accordance with Section 6.30 of the Administrative Code, 
the Airport initiated an expedited contracting procedure to 
repair the power distribution system. The Airport selected 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 30, 1992 



the firm of Cresci Electric, a WBE firm certified by the 
Human Rights Commission, to repair the power distribution 
system (see Comment No. 2 below). 

The proposed resolution would approve the Airport's 
declaration of emergency and the emergency repairs for the 
power distribution system, at an estimated cost of $220,000. 



Comments: 1. On October 23, 1992, the Airport estimated that the repairs 

to the power distribution system would cost $150,000. Mr. 
Angel Camerino, an Electrical Engineer for the Airport, 
reports that, after further inspection of the damage to the 
power distribution system, the cost estimate was increased to 
$220,000. However, Mr. Camerino reports that the actual cost 
of the completed repairs was $161,650.24. Therefore, the 
proposed resolution should be amended to reflect that the 
actual cost of repairs was $161,650.24, rather than the 
estimated $220,000. 

2. Mr. Camerino states that the power distribution system 
which failed consists of electrical transmission cables which 
are situated in underground pipes, and switching equipment 
and transformers which control the supply of electricity to 
individual buildings. Mr. Camerino states that the 
equipment which failed was more than 45 years old and had 
exceeded its useful life. Mr. Camerino states that the 
equipment had been targeted for replacement by the Airport, 
but he was not aware of the specific date when it would have 
been repaired through normal maintenance operations. 

The unanticipated conditions which resulted in an increase 
in the estimated repair cost from $150,000 to $220,000 included 
the collapse of an underground pipe carrying electrical cable, 
which required that the cable be re-routed, instead of only 
being replaced in its existing location. 

3. Mr. Camerino states that the Airport consulted the 
Human Rights Commission's listing of MBE/WBE firms and 
interviewed the firm of Cresci Electric, a WBE firm, before 
selecting this firm to perform the services. Cresci Electric 
had previously performed services for the Airport, according 
to Mr. Camerino. 

4. Mr. Camerino states that electricity was restored to three 
of the four hangar buildings which lost power within three to 
four days, and that all repairs were completed on 
approximately October 31, 1992, ten days after the failure 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 30, 1992 

occurred. While the repairs were being made, the Airport 
supplied electricity to the hangar buildings using standby 
electrical generators. 

Recommendations: 1. Amend the title and body of the proposed resolution, at line 
4 and line 19, by substituting "$161,650.24" for "$220,000." 

2. Approve the proposed resolution, as amended. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
IJUDGKT ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 30, 1992 

Item lb - File 147-92-7 



Department: 
Item: 

Grant Amount: 
Grant Period: 
Source of Funds: 

Project 

Description: 



Budget 



San Francisco Public Library 

Resolution authorizing the Public Library to apply for, accept 
and expend Federal funds for Major Urban Resource 
Libraries for fiscal year 1992-93. 

$65,528 

October 1, 1992 through September 30, 1993 

Title I of the Library Services and Construction Act (LCSA), 
administered through the State Library 

Major Urban Resource Libraries (MURL) 

The San Francisco Public Library was designated as a Major 
Urban Resource Library (MURL) in 1984 and has received 
MURL Federal grant funds since that time. In compliance 
with the guidelines of the MURL grant program, the Public 
Library chose to specialize in the areas of business and 
science, since these materials go out of date quickly and 
continue to increase in cost, and has designed a Regional 
Area Collection Development Plan to address the information 
needs of both children and adults interested in these 
particular fields. 

The San Francisco Public Library would use the Federal 
grant funds to expand its collection of books in the fields of 
business, science and technology. In addition, the proposed 
grant funds would be used to purchase books in Asian 
languages, Russian and Spanish to meet the needs of the 
growing immigrant populations in the Bay Area. 



Main Library ' 

Business/Science Department of the Main Library 
Includes Regional business directories, 
trade catalogs, business services 

General Circulating Library of the Main Library 
Includes Vietnamese, Chinese, and Spanish 
language 

Children's Services 
Vietnamese 
Japanese 
Spanish 
Chinese 



$28,500 



8,120 



2,000 
1,000 
2,000 
3,000 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 30, 1992 



Branch Libraries 
Chinatown Branch - Chinese language 
Mission Branch - Spanish language 
Richmond Branch - Russian language 
Western Addition Branch - Japanese language 



$9,908 
6,000 
2,500 
Z5QQ. 

$65,528 



Total Proposed Grant Funds 

Required Match: None. 

Indirect Costs: None. 

Comments: 1. As noted above, the proposed grant period began on 

October 1, 1992. Ms. Nancy Musser of the Public Library 
reports that these proposed funds have been applied for, 
accepted and expended during November, 1992, but due to a 
departmental oversight, the Public Library has not previously 
requested the Board of Supervisors authorization to apply for. 
accept and expend the proposed grant funds. Therefore, the 
proposed resolution should be amended to authorize the 
Public Library to apply for, accept and expend the proposed 
grant funds retroactively. 

2. The State does not allow the proposed grant funds to be 
used for indirect costs. Therefore, the title of the proposed 
resolution should be amended to indicate that indirect costs 
are waived for the proposed grant funds. 

3. According to Ms. Musser, any cataloguing costs which 
would be incurred as a result of purchasing books with the 
proposed grant funds would be absorbed within the Public 
Library's existing budget. 

4. The Disability Access Checklist is in the file. 

5. Attached is the Summary of Grant Request form. 

Recommendations: 1. Amend the proposed resolution to authorize the Public 
Library to apply for, accept and expend the proposed grant 
funds retroactively. 

2. Amend the proposed resolution to indicate that indirect 
costs are waived for the proposed grant funds. 

3. Approve the proposed resolution as amended. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



File Number 



Grant Application Information Form 

A document required to accompany a proposed resolution 
Authorizing a Department to Apply for a Grant 



To: The Board of Supervisors 
Attn: Clerk of the Board 

The following describes the grant referred to in the accompanying 
resolution : 

Department: Library 

Contact Person: Nancy Musser Telephone: 557-4330 

Project Title: MURL (Major Urban Resource Libraries) 

Grant Source: LSCA Funds awarded through the State Library (Library Servic es and 

Construction Act) 
Proposed (New / Continuation) Grant Project Summary: 

The library applies for and receives MURL funds annually. They are used 
entirely for the purchase of library materials: 

Books in the fields of business, science, and technology, materials that go 
out of date quickly and continue to increase in cost. 

Books in Asian languages, Russian and Spanish to meet the needs of the 
Bay Area's growing immigrant populations. 



Amount of Grant Funding Applied for: $65,528 

Maximum Funding Amount Available: $65,528 

Required Matching Funds: nnnp 



Number of Positions Created and Funded: 



Amount to be Spent on Contractual Services: 



Will Contractual Services be put out to Bid? n a 



Grant Application Information Form 
Page 2 



Term of Grant: October 1. 199? - Sppt-. 30 , 1933 
Date Department Notified of Available funds: 
Application Due Date: 



iiUflg 1 , , 199? 



July 31 , 199? 



Grant Funding Guidelines and Options (from RFP, grant announcement or 
appropriations legislation): 



The MURL funds are to be used for the development of collections of 
regional as well as local value. 

The funds are paid to the library in a lump sum in the fall to be 
expended-according to the plan submitted- by October 30 of the following year. 




7 



Department Head Approval 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 30, 1992 

Item lc - File 147-92-8 

Department Public Library 

Item: Resolution authorizing the City Librarian to apply for a 

donation of equipment valued at $405,416.85 available from 
the Corporate Contributions Committee of Digital Equipment 
Corporation for creating the AIDS Library /Information 
Network; waiving indirect costs. 

Project AIDS Library Information Network 

Description: The proposed resolution would authorize the Public Library 

to apply for a donation of equipment, valued at $405,416.85, 
donated by the Corporate Contributions Committee of Digital 
Equipment Corporation. The equipment would likely be 
donated by June, 1993. 

The proposed equipment donation would be used in the new 
Main Library and branch libraries to create an AIDS/HrV 
information database that will include AIDS/HTV service 
provider profiles. Specifically the proposed equipment 
donation would be used as follows: 

• establishment of a centrally maintained information and 
referral database; 

• coordination of efforts by numerous AIDS service agencies; 

• replacement of multiple paper-based information and 
referral systems; 

• reduction in duplicated efforts by AIDS service agencies; 

• expanded points of access for important AIDS information 
and referral systems; 

• expanded points of access for important AIDS information 
and referrals; 

• improvement in the quality and uniformity of vital 
information. J 

As the AIDS epidemic has grown, funding has not kept pace 
with a widening need for information. The proposed 
equipment would be used to assist AIDS service agencies in 
meeting a growing demand in spite of often diminishing 
resources by vastly improving efficiency and establishing 
alternative sources for this information. 

Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC) would provide 
computer hardware and software to establish the AIDS/HIV 
information database, with a total value of $405,416.85. DEC 
would contribute 75 percent of the cost of the equipment, or 
$304,062.64, and the City and several AIDS/HIV related non- 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 30, 1992 



Budget: 



Required Match: 



Indirect Costs: 



Comments: 



profit agencies would provide 25 percent of the cost of the 
equipment as matching funds to DEC, or $101,354.21 for the 
equipment donation. 

Although the equipment donation would be made to the City, 
non-profit agencies which work in the areas of AIDS/HIV 
would also receive a portion of the total equipment donations. 
A breakdown of the equipment allocation is as follows: 

Equipment 
A gency Value 

San Francisco Public Library $34,544.00 

San Francisco AIDS Foundation 140,339.00 
AIDS Service Providers Association 45,183.00 

Life Center 45,183.00 

Other Agencies 48.200.00 

Total Equipment Purchases $313,449.00 

Installation and Warranties 91.967.85 

Total Equipment $405,416.85 

25 percent of the total estimated costs of $405,416.85, which 
would result in a total required match of $101,354.21 for the 
City and the non-profit agencies. The City's portion of the 
required match would be $11,148.96 (See Comment #2). The 
City's required match of $11,148.96 consists of the City's pro- 
rated share of the equipment ($8,619.84) and the installation 
and warranties ($2,529.12). 

None. The Public Library is requesting that indirect costs be 
waived for the proposed grant funds. 

1. The Public Library has an existing master agreement 
with DEC for the implementation of an automated card 
catalog system for the new Main Library and its branches. 
Under this master agreement, the City receives an estimated 
21 percent discount on equipment. The total value of 
$405,416.85 of the equipment which would be donated to the 
City, and which includes $101,354.21 in 25 percent matching 
funds from the City and non-profit agencies, already includes 
this discount. 

2. As noted above, the proposed grant requires that the City 
and the non-profit agencies to provide a 25 percent match of 
the costs, and Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC) would 
pay for 75 percent of the equipment costs, including 
installation and warranties. The total required match for 
the City would be $11,148.96. The remaining $90,205.25 of the 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 30, 1992 



total required matching funds of $101,354.21 would be funded 
by the non-profit agencies. 

3. The source of funds for the City's portion of the matching 
funds has not yet been identified. According to Mr. Ed 
McBride of the Public Library, the City is currently 
requesting DEC to waive this required match. If DEC does 
not waive this required match, Mr. McBride reports that the 
Library Foundation of San Francisco has indicated that the 
required match may be funded through private donations. 
However, the Public Library has not yet received any written 
assurance from either DEC or from the Library Foundation 
regarding whether this required match would be waived, or 
whether it could be funded through private donations. 

4. The proposed equipment donation includes a three year 
warranty, beginning in FY 1992-93 and ending in FY 1994-95. 
The projected annual maintenance costs, which would begin 
in FY 95-96, for the City and the non-profit agencies are as 
follows: 





Projected 




Annual 




Maintenance 




Costs 


Agency 




SF Public Library 


$1,950 


SF AIDS Foundation 


5,520 


AIDS Providers Assn. 


4,440 


Life Center 


4,440 


Other Agencies 


252 



Total $16,602 

These estimated annual maintenance costs beginning in FY 
1995-96 would continue in subsequent fiscal years. 

5. Under the proposed donation, although the equipment 
donated would be used by the City and several non-profit 
agencies, the equipment would be donated to the City, and the 
City would be liable if the non-profit agencies default on 
either providing the required matching funds or providing 
funds for maintenance beginning in FY 95-96. Therefore, the 
City could incur additional General Fund costs of $101,354.21, 
for one-time costs for the total required match, and $16,602.00 
which could be incurred on an annual basis for maintenance 
costs beginning in FY 95-96. 



BOARD OF SI TPKKVISOKS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

10 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 30, 1992 



Recommendation: 



6. According to Mr. McBride, if the other agencies default on 
providing the required matching fluids, the Public Library 
would not accept the equipment for the non-profit agencies, 
and therefore only maintenance costs may subsequently be 
incurred for those non-profit agencies which have already 
provided the required matching funds. 

7. The proposed new computer equipment is considered to be 
a complete package to establish the AIDS/HIV Library 
Information Network. However, to the extent that any of the 
non-profit agencies that the Public Library expects will 
provide matching funds for components of the system (as 
detailed in the project budget above), fail to provide matching 
funds, the AIDS/HrV Library Information Network would be 
incomplete and the overall efficiency of the system could be 
impaired. 

8. The Disability Access checklist is in the Board File 

9. Attached is the Summary of Grant Request Form. 

10. Given that the source of funds for the required matching 
funds have not yet been identified, and given that the City 
would incur additional maintenance costs funded through 
the General Fund beginning in FY 1995-96, and also could 
incur additional General Fund costs in the event that the 
non-profit agencies default, approval of the proposed 
resolution is a policy matter for the Board of Supervisors. 

11. The Public Library is requesting that the proposed 
resolution be continued to the Finance Committee meeting of 
January 6, 1993. 

Continue the proposed resolution to the Finance Committee 
meeting of January 6, 1993, as requested by the Public 
Library. / 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



11 



.flf/noer 



%& 



Grant Application Information Form 



s 



A document required to accompany a proposed resolution 
Authorizing a Department to Apply for a Grant 



To: The Board of Supervisors 
Attn: Clerk of the Board 

The following describes the grant referred to in the accompanying 
resolution: 

Department: San Francisco Public Library 



Contact Person: George E. McBride 



Telephone: 55 7 ~4 2 1 5 



Project Title: AIDS Library Information Network 
Grant Source: Digital Equipment Corporation 



Proposed (New / Continuation) Grant Project Summary 



This grant will provide computer equipment in the Library 
that will allow networking between three other information 
providers. This network will provide a database of AIDS/HIV 
service providers for persons with HIV/AIDS. 



Amount of Grant Funding Applied for: $405 , A 16.00 



Maximum Funding Amount Available: $5.0 mill ion 
Required Matching Funds: 



Number of Positions Created and Funded: N / A 

Amount to be Spent on Contractual Services: _ $1,950 year 4 and 5 



Will Contractual Services be put out to Bid? 



12 



ilication Into^uion Form 



Term of Grant: One time gift of equipment 

Date Department Notified of Available funds: March 1992 
Application Due Date: No date specified 



Grant Funding Guidelines and Options (from RFP, grant announcement or 
appropriations legislation): 



See attached announcement 



y ^M r^R 



Department Head Approval 



13 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 30, 1992 

Item Id - File 101-90-121 .3 

Department: Water Department 



Item: 



Amount: 



Release of reserved funds for the San Andreas Pipeline No. 3 
Relining Project. 

$10.5 million 



Source of Funds: Water Department 1991 Series A Revenue Bonds 

Description: On June 26, 1991 the Board of Supervisors approved a 

supplemental appropriation ordinance (File 101-90-121) to 
appropriate $47,925,000 of Water Department 1991 Series A 
Revenue Bonds for the following projects: 

San Andreas Pipeline No. 3 Relining $15,000,000 

Calaveras Pipeline 11,300,000 

Three-Year Main Replacement 19,125,000 

Three-Year Service Renewals 2.500.000 

Total $47,925,000 

Of the $15 million that was appropriated for the San Andreas 
Pipeline No. 3 Relining, $10.5 million was reserved pending 
selection of the construction contractors and identification of 
their MBE/WBE status and cost details. 

The San Andreas Pipeline No. 3 relining project consists of 
installing a new 60 inch diameter steel liner pipe inside the 
existing 66 inch diameter pipe for approximately three miles 
between the San Andreas Water Treatment Plant and the 
Baden Pump Station in South San Francisco. The existing 
pipe has broken in places and the Water Department believes 
that the whole pipe should be rehabilitated due to its age. The 
space between the old pipe and the new liner pipe would be 
filled with concrete. 

Six bids were received for the project to reline the 
approximately three mile section of the pipeline between the 
San Andreas Water Treatment Plant and the Baden Pump 
Station on October 27, 1992. The bids ranged from a high bid 
of $7,472,352 to a low bid of $5,448,000 from the joint venture of 
A. Ruiz Construction Co. and Associates (an MBE firm) and 
Ranger Pipeline Inc. The Water Department's estimated 
budget for the project is as follows: 



Construction 

Contingency (approx. 10 %) 
Total 



$5,448,000 

552.000 
$6,000,000 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



14 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 30, 1992 



Comment: 



The Water Department is requesting that $6.0 million be 
released for the San Andreas Pipeline No. 3 Relining project 
at this time instead of the full $10.5 million that was reserved. 
The requested $6.0 million would provide construction 
funding to rehabilitate the approximately three mile section 
of the pipeline between the San Andreas Water Treatment 
Plant and the Baden Pump Station. 

According to the Water Department, construction is expected 
to begin on February 1, 1993 and be completed by November 
27, 1993. 

The Water Department is also requesting that an additional 
$500,000 be released in order to perform testing of the San 
Andreas Pipeline No. 3 north of the Baden Pump Station. The 
Water Department explains that rehabilitation of the section 
of the pipeline north of the Baden Pump Station is part of the 
San Andreas Pipeline No. 3 Relining project but is not the 
subject of the proposed relining construction. According to 
the Water Department, testing of the section of the pipeline 
north of the Baden Pump Station will eventually have to be 
tested before any relining construction occurs. However, the 
Water Department has not selected a contractor specifically 
to perform the testing. Therefore the Budget Analyst 
recommends that the additional $500,000 requested for testing 
the pipeline north of the Baden Pump Station not be released 
until a contractor is selected and cost and MBE/WBE details 
are determined. 



Recommendation: 



Release reserved funds in the amount of $6.0 million for 
construction and contingency to rehabilitate approximately 
three miles of the San Andreas Pipeline No. 3. Continue to 
reserve $4.5 million ($10.5 million originally reserved less 
$6.0 million recommended' release of reserve) including 
$500,000 for testing the pipeline north of the Baden Pump 
Station pending selection of contractors and determination of 
cost and MBE/WBE details. 



BOARD OF S UPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



15 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 30, 1992 

Item 2 - File 69-92-1 

1. This item is a motion directing the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors to 
submit to the Mayor a request for a supplemental appropriation of $30,802 to the 
Board of Supervisors for services of the Budget Analyst, using funds which have 
accumulated in the Cable Television Access and Development Fund. 

2. During the budget deliberations of February, 1992 the FY 1992-93 budget 
for the Board of Supervisors was reduced by $40,525 from the FY 1991-92 level for 
the services of the Budget Analyst. This $40,525 funding reduction results in a 665 
hour reduction in services provided by the Budget Analyst. In October, 1992 the 
appropriation for the Budget Analyst was reduced for the second time by $30,802 or 
the equivalent of an additional reduction of 465 hours of Budget Analyst services. 
The total of these two reductions for FY 1992-93 is $71,327 representing 1,130 hours 
of Budget Analyst services. 

3. The proposed motion would request the Mayor to submit a supplemental 
appropriation to the Board of Supervisors that would appropriate $30,802, from the 
unappropriated revenues in the Cable Television Access and Development Fund, a 
special fund, to the Board of Supervisors budget, in order to restore the second 
reduction to the budget for contractual services of the Budget Analyst. The use of 
fees and special fund revenues for the services of the Budget Analyst is consistent 
with similar actions approved by the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors. If this 
reduction is restored, the Budget Analyst's contract will be reduced by $40,525 
instead of $71,327. 

4. The Cable Television Access and Development Fund currently has an 
available balance of $99,494. The proposed transfer of $30,802 from the Cable 
Television Access and Development Fund would leave an unappropriated balance of 
$68,692 in this special fund. 

5. The transfer of $30,802 from the Cable Television Access and Development 
Fund to the Budget Analyst's contract was not made during the September, 1992 
Finance Committee budget hearings regarding revisions to the FY 1992-93 budget. 
Therefore, the proposed request to make such a transfer of funds is being submitted 
at this time. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



16 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 30, 1992 

Item 3 - File 97-92-40 

Note: This item was continued at the October 7, 1992 Finance 
Committee meeting. 

Item: Ordinance amending the City's Administrative Code by adding 

Section 5. 108 .A to establish a County Veteran Service Officer 
within the Office of the Chief Administrative Officer. 

Description: State law authorizes the Board of Supervisors of each County 

to designate a County Veteran Service Officer (CVSO) and to 
provide the CVSO with appropriate staffing and other 
resources, in order to assist veterans to obtain State and 
Federal veteran's benefits. Although 55 of California's 58 
Counties have such an Office, San Francisco does not. 

The proposed ordinance would establish a County Veteran 
Service Officer within the Office of the Chief Administrative 
Officer (CAO) in order to administer aid to indigent veterans 
and to investigate claims for benefits under State or Federal 
law. The effort to establish such an office has resulted from the 
planned relocation of State and Federal Veterans Affairs 
offices from San Francisco to Oakland in March, 1993, which 
will diminish veterans' access to veterans service 
organizations. 

On September 15, 1992, the City Services Committee 
recommended approval of the proposed ordinance, but 
recommended that the Finance Committee consider the impact 
of increased veterans benefits on General Fund expenditures 
for social services, as well as potential sources of funding, other 
than the General Fund, for the proposed CVSO. 

The CAO has proposed to incorporate the CVSO with the 
Office of the Public Administrator/Public Guardian, which 
currently provides services to some veterans. The County 
Veteran Service Officer is required by California law to be a 
veteran. The current Public Administrator/Public Guardian is 
a veteran. 

Under the CAO's proposal, the annual CVSO budget would be 
$409,200. This amount would be partially offset by a State 
subvention estimated at $40,000 based on operating the new 
program for eight months in FY 1992-93 from November 1, 
1992 through June 30, 1992 and also includes $115,238 in 
salary and fringe benefits for existing staff in the office of the 
Public Administrator/ Public Guardian. The CAO estimates 
that total new costs to the City annually for the CVSO after 
deducting the $115,238 costs for existing staff would be 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

17 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 30, 1992 



Budget: 



EEE 


Amount 


.25 


$20,795 


1.00 


45,623 


2.00 


82,892 


1.50 


62,169 


.25 


9,226 


100 


36.566 


6.00 


$257,271 



$293,962. The Budget Analyst estimates total expenditures for 
the eight month period from November 1, 1992 through June 
30, 1992 at $195,975. If the estimated State subvention of 
$40,000 is received, net General Fund expenditures over the 
eight months are estimated at $155,975. 

Personnel 



1126 Public Administrator 
4231 Sr. Estate Investigator 
4230 Estate Investigator 
2905 Sr. Eligibility Worker 
1650 Accountant 
1446 Secretary II 
Subtotal 

Fringe Benefits (@ 25 percent) 

Subtotal 

Operating Costs 
EDP Services 
Travel 

Miscellaneous Services 
Telepbone 

Materials and Supplies 
Rent (2,000 sq. ft.) 
Real Estate Dept. 
Central Shop-Maintenance 
Central Shop-Fuel 
Reproduction 
Subtotal 

Start. Un Costs 
EDP Services 
Equipment Purchase 
Automobile Purchase 
Subtotal 



64.318 



$16,800 

12,000 

5,157 

4,760 

1,990 

24,000 

1,000 

1,054 

500 

350 



$4,000 

6,000 

10-000 



Total $409,200 

Less Existing Public Administrator/Public Guardian Staff 
Net New First Year General Fund Contribution Required 



$321,589 



67,611 

20000 

(115.238) 
$293.962 



General Fund Contribution over 8 Months of FY 1992-93 
(66.6 percent of First Year Cost) 

Less Estimated State Subvention 

Net Estimated General Fund Contribution, FY 1992-93 



$195,975 

(40.000) 
$155,975 



BOARD OF SUPERVISOR 
BUDGET ANALYST 



18 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 30, 1992 



Comments: 1. Of the proposed $409,200 budget for the County Veterans 

Service Office, $115,238 would consist of existing personnel 
costs in the Office of the Public Administrator/Public Guardian 
(PA/PG). According to Mr. Ricardo Hernandez, the Public 
Administrator/Public Guardian, certain PA/PG positions, 
equivalent to 2.0 FTE, would be transferred to the CVSO 
budget because these employees currently perform services on 
behalf of veterans, including estate management and 
conservatorships. These activities would be incorporated into 
the functions of the CVSO. The classifications to be transferred 
would be the Public Administrator/Public Guardian (.25 FTE), 
Senior Eligibility Workers (1.5 FTE), and an Accountant (.25 
FTE). 

Mr. Hernandez states that salary and fringe benefit costs for 
these employees are now paid from the General Fund. Since 
the proposed $409,200 CVSO budget includes $115,238 for 
existing positions which are already funded, the amount of new 
funding needed to establish the CVSO for the first year is 
$293,962. 

2. If the CVSO is established on November 1, 1992, the 
General Fund contribution in Fiscal Year 1992-93 would be 
$195,975. 

3. The proposed budget includes a $40,000 estimated 
subvention from the California Department of Veterans 
Affairs. Mr. Gerald Rucker of the California Department of 
Veterans Affairs reports that his office has estimated that 
$40,000 in State funds would be allocated to San Francisco in 
1992-93, based on the inception of services in November 1992. 

Mr. Rucker reports that State subvention funds include $2,500 
to offset the salary of the County Veterans Service Officer and 
$5,000 for administrative costs. Thus, a minimum of $7,500 
would be reimbursed by the State. The State also allocates 
subvention funds on the basis of claim forms filed and awards 
granted by the Federal Veterans Administration. Each claim 
form and each award generated by a CVSO counts as a single 
performance credit for the CVSO. Mr. Rucker has estimated 
that in addition to the $7,500, the proposed San Francisco 
CVSO would receive $32,500 for approximately 2,400 claim 
forms and awards during fiscal year 1992-93, resulting in a 
total estimated subvention of $40,000 in 1992-93. 

Performance-based State subventions are not awarded at an 
established rate. Rather, the State calculates the total number 
of claims filed each year State-wide and allocates available 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
HUDGET ANALYST 



19 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 30, 1992 



funds in proportion to a County's share of the total. The 
Budget Analyst notes that it is doubtful that by increasing the 
number of claims filed, a CVSO can significantly increase its 
share of the State subvention, because the increase in local 
claims would be a very small percentage of all claims State- 
wide. 

Mr. Rucker indicates that legislation is currently pending 
before the State Legislature which would authorize additional 
funds for this program through the sale of customized vehicle 
license plates. Mr. Rucker reports that the State Department 
of Finance has estimated that this legislation would increase 
State allocations to CVSOs by approximately 12 percent, 
beginning in 1994-95. The Budget Analyst notes that a 12 
percent increase in San Francisco's estimated 1992-93 State 
subvention of $40,000 would result in a total State subvention 
of $44,800. 

4. The California Department of Veterans Affairs (CDVA) 
estimates that 76,490 veterans were residents of San Francisco 
in March, 1991, and that 8,498, or approximately 11 percent of 
these veterans were receiving veterans benefits. According to 
CDVA, the average monthly payment to benefit recipients in 
Northern California in 1990 was $449, compared to an average 
monthly payment of $339 to veterans residing in San 
Francisco. CDVA estimates that if average monthly benefit 
levels for San Francisco's veterans were to increase by $110 to 
$449, equal to the Northern California average monthly 
payment, through the efforts of a CVSO, then San Francisco 
veterans would realize additional annual income of 
approximately $11.2 million. However, there is no firm 
documentation that this increase would be achieved. The 
Budget Analyst notes that if this estimate is accurate, the City 
could realize higher tax revenues if veterans expend higher 
levels of income within the City. 

5. The CDVA reports that establishing a San Francisco CVSO 
could result in reductions in General Assistance payments to 
veterans who qualify for veterans benefits. However, there is 
no firm documentation that such reductions would be achieved. 

According to Ms. Dorothy Enisman of the San Francisco 
Department of Social Services (DSS), General Assistance 
eligibility workers do not currently apply to the U.S. Veterans 
Administration (USVA) for benefits on behalf of veterans who 
apply for General Assistance. DSS does request information 
from the USVA concerning whether the applicant is currently 
receiving veterans benefits. Ms. Enisman estimates that in 
99.9 percent of cases, such an inquiry to the USVA on behalf of 

BOARD OF STTPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



20 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 30, 1992 



an identified veteran reveals that the veteran is not receiving 
veterans benefits. 

According to Mr. Hernandez, Social Service Departments in 
other California Counties ordinarily refer General Assistance 
applicants who are veterans to the CVSO to evaluate their 
eligibility for veterans benefits. Mr. Rucker states that a 
standard form issued by the California Department of Social 
Services is available for this purpose, and that State 
subvention funds to County CVSO's are based in part on 
MediCal cost avoidance activities. Mr. Hernandez states that 
he would organize a similar referral process between the CVSO 
and the Department of Social Services (DSS) in San Francisco, 
if the CVSO is created. 

6. The Budget Analyst has contacted representatives of Swords 
to Plowshares, Disabled American Veterans, and the Monterey 
and Sacramento County Veterans Service Officers in an effort 
to understand veterans' eligibility for benefits. The following 
explanation of veterans benefits is based on these discussions. 

The monetary benefits which are available to qualified 
veterans, and which could potentially offset County General 
Assistance expenditures for veterans, include Disability 
Compensation and Pensions. 

Disability Compensation requires a showing that the veteran 
has been partially or totally disabled as a result of military 
service. Benefits for such service-connected disabilities are 
paid in proportion to the extent of the disability (from 10 to 100 
percent, as determined according to VA guidelines). The 
amount of the benefit ranges from $83 per month for a 10 
percent disability to $1,680 per month for full disability. 

Disability Compensation would reduce a veteran's eligibility 
for General Assistance on a dollar-for-dollar basis. At a 
disability rating of 40 percent, the disability compensation of 
$342 per month would essentially eliminate the maximum 
General Assistance award of $345 per month. However, to 
qualify under this program, it must be shown that the 
veteran's disability resulted directly from his or her military 
service. In addition, the disability cannot be the result of 
"willful misconduct." The USVA regards alcohol or drug use 
which results in disability to be "willful misconduct," although 
such use can also be regarded as symptomatic of certain 
recognized disorders, such as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. 
Veterans' advocates report that claims for service-connected 
disabilities must be carefully analyzed, prepared, and 
documented in order to be successful. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

21 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 30, 1992 



Pensions are provided to veterans who are permanently and 
totally disabled for any reason, have limited income, and have 
at least 90 days of military service, including at least one day 
during a period of war. Pensions provide a subsistence level of 
income, currently equal to $7,397 annually for a veteran with 
no dependents, but pensions are reduced if the veteran has 
other sources of income or significant assets. Although a 
pension is available regardless of the reason for the disability, 
the disability must be total. Persons with total disabilities 
may already be less likely to receive General Assistance, since 
they are often eligible for Federal Supplemental Security 
Income. 

7. DSS does not maintain statistics concerning the number of 
General Assistance recipients who are veterans. However, a 
recent DSS survey indicates that 28 percent of GA applicants 
in 1989 were age 41-60 (persons who were of military age 
during the Vietnam conflict), while another 34.5 percent were 
age 31-40 (including some who were of military age during 
Vietnam). Among GA recipients who received benefits for 
more than one year, approximately 6.5 percent had a 
psychological disorder and approximately 54 percent had 
significant health problems or disabilities which prevented 
them from working. 

Since Ms. Enisman reports that almost every veteran who 
applies for General Assistance is found not to be receiving any 
veterans benefits, and DSS does not apply for such benefits, 
the Budget Analyst believes that a reasonable potential does 
exist to offset General Assistance payments for veterans by 
seeking disability compensation and pensions. However, the 
amount of savings which could be realized, if at all, cannot be 
quantified since statistics are not available concerning the 
veteran status of GA recipients. 

8. Veterans who have at least a 20 percent service-connected 
disability, or who receive a VA pension due to full disability 
regardless of cause, are eligible for health care benefits 
through Veterans Administration facilities. The Budget 
Analyst notes that such health care benefits could offset the 
cost of health care provided through County facilities, although 
the fiscal effects of any such benefit cannot be established at 
this time. Veterans with these disabilities are also eligible to 
receive vocational rehabilitation through the Veterans 
Administration. 

9. Certain types of veterans benefits are available to spouses 
and dependents of veterans. These benefits include a non- 

BOARD OF STTPERVTSORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



22 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 30, 1992 



service connected death benefit, subject to income guidelines, 
for survivors of war-time veterans. 

Mr. Hernandez states that a particular need exists in San 
Francisco for assistance to Asian-American veterans and their 
spouses, widows, or children, particularly those who are 
Vietnamese or Filipino. Mr. Hernandez states that Federal 
legislation was enacted earlier this year which recognized the 
U.S. citizenship claims of veterans who served in the 
Philippine Scouts, and who may now be eligible for veterans 
benefits for the first time. Mr. Hernandez also reports that the 
homeless population is thought to consist of large numbers of 
veterans, who could receive assistance in obtaining benefits 
through a CVSO. 

10. According to Ms. Kym Valdez, Human Services Program 
Director for Swords to Plowshares, a non-profit veterans 
services agency, applications for veterans benefits are 
extremely complex and the benefits are often difficult to obtain. 
Ms. Valdez states that the U.S. Veterans Administration, 
through its regional offices, usually does not assist veterans in 
filing claims, but expects claims to be complete and fully 
documented before they will be considered. Mr. Hernandez 
states that the State of California established the State 
network of CVSO offices in response to the lack of Federal 
outreach to veterans and the difficulty veterans faced in 
obtaining benefits. 

All of the veterans benefit counselors who were contacted for 
this report have emphasized that success in obtaining veterans 
benefits requires aggressive advocacy efforts and considerable 
proficiency in benefit requirements. 

11. Under State law, the County Veterans Services Officer is 
required to be a veteran. Mr. Hernandez, who would serve as 
the CVSO, is a veteran. According to the City Attorney's Office, 
to combine the positions of PA/PG and CVSO at this time 
would not require that all future candidates for the position of 
Public Administrator/Public Guardian must also be veterans. 
However, if a non-veteran PA/PG is appointed in the future, 
according to the City Attorney's Office, the CVSO position 
would have to be transferred elsewhere. 

12. Items 16 and 17 of this report are an ordinance to amend 
the Annual Salary Ordinance to create four new positions for 
the proposed new program and a supplemental appropriation 
ordinance to fund the new positions and startup and operating 
costs of the new program. This proposed ordinance to amend 
the Administrative Code to establish the new program should 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



23 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 30, 1992 

be considered together with Items 16 and 17, Files 101-92-22 
and 102-92-4 of this report. 

13. The Budget Analyst considers this program to be a worthy 
program, but cautions against all new expenditures given the 
City's fiscal problems. As previously noted, the net additional 
cost for this new program after deducting the costs of existing 
employees is estimated at $293,962 annually. This $293,962 
annual cost would be reduced by the State's subvention to the 
City for operating the program. On an annual basis, for 1993- 
94 Mr. Rucker estimates that the State subsidy would be 
approximately $70,000. However, the amount of the State's 
subventions for future years cannot be estimated at this time. 
Based on a State subsidy of $70,000, the proposed new 
program would require additional General Fund funding of 
$223,962 ($293,962 less $70,000) annually in the future. 
Therefore, approval of the proposed ordinance to establish a 
new City program is a policy matter for the Board of 
Supervisors. 

Recommendation: Approval of the proposed ordinance to establish a new City 
program that would create four new positions and would 
require additional General Fund funding of $223,962 (based on 
a $70,000 annual State subsidy) is a policy matter for the 
Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



24 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 30, 1992 

Items 4 and 5 - File 197-92-5 and 127-92-11 

Note: These items were continued by the Finance Committee at its meeting of 
December 16, 1992. 

1. File 197-92-5 The proposed resolution would constitute the Cultural 
Affairs Task Force Final Report Committee as the Task Force's Implementation 
Committee, with the addition of the CAO or his representative, for the purpose of 
developing a legislative proposal for the creation of a Cultural Equity Endowment 
Fund Program and for the purpose of developing proposals to implement other 
recommendations of the Cultural Affairs Task Force final report. 

File 127-92-11 The proposed ordinance would amend the San Francisco 
Municipal Code, Part III, Section 515 to create a special fund to be known as the 
Cultural Equity Endowment Fund by reducing the percentage of the Hotel Tax 
allocated to the Moscone Convention Center, Brooks Hall, Civic Auditorium, 
Convention and Visitors Bureau, War Memorial, Publicity and Advertising Fund, 
Nonrecurring Events Fund and by capturing a percentage of the General Fund 
and to provide that at such time as Hotel Tax Funds are no longer necessary for 
Candlestick Park as set forth under the proposed ordinance, a portion of such 
funds would be allocated to the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) for certain 
publicity and advertising purposes. 

2. On October 28, 1992 the Finance Committee held a hearing to consider the 
Cultural Affairs Task Force Final Report. As a result of this hearing, the Finance 
Committee requested the City Attorney to prepare legislation to effect changes in 
the distribution of Hotel Tax revenues and to enpanel a committee to implement 
the recommendations of the Cultural Affairs Task Force. These two items would 
1) effect changes in the distribution of Hotel Tax revenues, and 2) constitute the 
Cultural Affairs Task Force Final Report Committee as the Task Force's 
Implementation Committee. 

3. According to Mr. John Kreidler of the San Francisco Foundation, a 
private nonprofit foundation, and a member of the Task Force, the Cultural 
Affairs Task Force was formed, in part, in response to criticism of the Grants for 
the Arts (GFTA) program by certain members of the arts community. Mr. 
Kreidler advises that some members of the arts community believed that GFTA 
funds could be distributed more equitably because: (1) some organizations of 
comparable size received substantially different grant amounts; and (2) large arts 
organizations, such as the Exploratorium, the Symphony, the Opera, the Ballet 
and ACT, by virtue of their size, received a disproportionate amount of GFTA's 
total funds. These large arts organizations are all Western European in their 
derivation, leading to allegations that the distribution of GFTA funds was racist. 
According to Mr. Kreidler, certain GFTA critics believed that funds should be 
redistributed, not based on size, but based on parity with the racial make-up of 
San Francisco. Under this distribution, if eight percent of San Francisco's 
population is African American, then eight percent of GFTA funds should be 
allocated to African American arts organizations. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



25 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 30, 1992 

4. The Task Force's report recommends that a second grant fund be 
established to correct the perceived racial and cultural inequities of Grants for the 
Arts. The proposed ordinance (File 127-92-11) would establish a special fund, 
called the Cultural Equity Endowment Fund, which would focus on the following 
four priorities: 

a. Cultural Equity Initiatives; 

b. Contracts for artwork to individual creative artists in all disciplines; 

c. Project grants to small and midsize arts organizations; and 

d. Facilities acquisition program, or Artspace Initiative. 

5. Unlike GFTA, grants from the Cultural Equity Endowment Fund would 
be made on a competitive basis. Such grants would not act as a subsidy, because 
grants would not necessarily be on-going. Instead, the Cultural Equity 
Endowment Fund would make purposeful investments for arts groups, Mr. 
Kreidler reports. For example, a group might receive a sum of money to support 
start-up costs, or to market their work for a limited time. Organizations that 
receive Cultural Equity Endowment funds would not be ineligible to receive GFTA 
on-going grants in addition to the competitive grant received from the Cultural 
Equity Endowment. 

6. File 127-92-11 would amend the City's Municipal Code to allocate 1.25 
percent of the total Hotel Tax Fund in FY 1993-94 and to allocate 1.75 percent in FY 
1994-95 and 2.25 percent in FY 1995-96 to the Cultural Equity Endowment Fund. 
The attached table demonstrates the impact of the proposed allocation to the 
current fund recipients of the Hotel Tax revenues. As noted in the attached table, 
under the proposed legislation, in FY 1993-94 the Unallocated General Fund 
would be reduced by $309,809 and Special Contingencies (publicity and advertising 
for special parades, celebrations, street fairs and unforeseen special 
contingencies) would be reduced by approximately $146,136. Each of the 
remaining affected organizations would be reduced by $68,684. Thus, of the six 
funds impacted by the proposed Cultural Equity Endowment Fund, the General 
Fund would be reduced by the greatest amount. 

7. According to Ms. Thelma Shelly, Director of the War Memorial, the War 
Memorial would have to raise rents in order to offset the proposed Hotel Tax 
revenue decreases of approximately $68,684 in FY 1993-94, $108,024 in FY 1994-95 
and $151,448 in FY 1995-96. Ms. Shelly advises that the War Memorial will be 
incurring expenses in the future for capital improvements on the War Memorial 
building that would have to be funded through increased rent fees if the War 
Memorial's Hotel Tax revenues decrease. 

8. As noted on the attached table, the proposed Cultural Equity Endowment 
Fund is targeted to consist of 1.25 percent and 1.75 percent of Hotel Tax funds 
during the first and second years, respectively, and 2.25 percent of Hotel Tax 
funds thereafter. The Task Force's report assumes that the Cultural Equity 
Endowment Fund would commence in 1993-94, and that Hotel Tax revenues 
would increase by five percent annually. Based on these assumptions, and based 
on FY 1992-93 estimated Hotel Tax revenues of $55,671,000 in 1992-93 generated 

BOARD OF STIPKRyT ftORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 30, 1992 

Items 4 and 5 - File 1 97-92-5 and 127-92-1 1 

Note: These items were continued by the Finance Committee at its meeting of 
December 16, 1992. 

1. File 197-92-5 The proposed resolution would constitute the Cultural 
Affairs Task Force Final Report Committee as the Task Force's Implementation 
Committee, with the addition of the CAO or his representative, for the purpose of 
developing a legislative proposal for the creation of a Cultural Equity Endowment 
Fund Program and for the purpose of developing proposals to implement other 
recommendations of the Cultural Affairs Task Force final report. 

File 127-92-11 The proposed ordinance would amend the San Francisco 
Municipal Code, Part III, Section 515 to create a special fund to be known as the 
Cultural Equity Endowment Fund by reducing the percentage of the Hotel Tax 
allocated to the Moscone Convention Center, Brooks Hall, Civic Auditorium, 
Convention and Visitors Bureau, War Memorial, Publicity and Advertising Fund, 
Nonrecurring Events Fund and by capturing a percentage of the General Fund 
and to provide that at such time as Hotel Tax Funds are no longer necessary for 
Candlestick Park as set forth under the proposed ordinance, a portion of such 
funds would be allocated to the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) for certain 
publicity and advertising purposes. 

2. On October 28, 1992 the Finance Committee held a hearing to consider the 
Cultural Affairs Task Force Final Report. As a result of this hearing, the Finance 
Committee requested the City Attorney to prepare legislation to effect changes in 
the distribution of Hotel Tax revenues and to enpanel a committee to implement 
the recommendations of the Cultural Affairs Task Force. These two items would 
1) effect changes in the distribution of Hotel Tax revenues, and 2) constitute the 
Cultural Affairs Task Force Final Report Committee as the Task Force's 
Implementation Committee. 

3. According to Mr. John Kreidler of the San Francisco Foundation, a 
private nonprofit foundation, and a member of the Task Force, the Cultural 
Affairs Task Force was formed, in part, in response to criticism of the Grants for 
the Arts (GFTA) program by certain members of the arts community. Mr. 
Kreidler advises that some members of the arts community believed that GFTA 
funds could be distributed more equitably because: (1) some organizations of 
comparable size received substantially different grant amounts; and (2) large arts 
organizations, such as the Exploratorium, the Symphony, the Opera, the Ballet 
and ACT, by virtue of their size, received a disproportionate amount of GFTA's 
total funds. These large arts organizations are all Western European in their 
derivation, leading to allegations that the distribution of GFTA funds was racist. 
According to Mr. Kreidler, certain GFTA critics believed that funds should be 
redistributed, not based on size, but based on parity with the racial make-up of 
San Francisco. Under this distribution, if eight percent of San Francisco's 
population is African American, then eight percent of GFTA funds should be 
allocated to African American arts organizations. 



board of ggJEEBMSQBS 

BUDGET ANALYST 



25 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 30, 1992 

4. The Task Force's report recommends that a second grant fund be 
established to correct the perceived racial and cultural inequities of Grants for the 
Arts. The proposed ordinance (File 127-92-11) would establish a special fund, 
called the Cultural Equity Endowment Fund, which would focus on the following 
four priorities: 

a. Cultural Equity Initiatives; 

b. Contracts for artwork to individual creative artists in all disciplines; 

c. Project grants to small and midsize arts organizations; and 

d. Facilities acquisition program, or Artspace Initiative. 

5. Unlike GFTA, grants from the Cultural Equity Endowment Fund would 
be made on a competitive basis. Such grants would not act as a subsidy, because 
grants would not necessarily be on-going. Instead, the Cultural Equity 
Endowment Fund would make purposeful investments for arts groups, Mr. 
Kreidler reports. For example, a group might receive a sum of money to support 
start-up costs, or to market their work for a limited time. Organizations that 
receive Cultural Equity Endowment funds would not be ineligible to receive GFTA 
on-going grants in addition to the competitive grant received from the Cultural 
Equity Endowment. 

6. File 127-92-11 would amend the City's Municipal Code to allocate 1.25 
percent of the total Hotel Tax Fund in FY 1993-94 and to allocate 1.75 percent in FY 
1994-95 and 2.25 percent in FY 1995-96 to the Cultural Equity Endowment Fund. 
The attached table demonstrates the impact of the proposed allocation to the 
current fund recipients of the Hotel Tax revenues. As noted in the attached table, 
under the proposed legislation, in FY 1993-94 the Unallocated General Fund 
would be reduced by $309,809 and Special Contingencies (publicity and advertising 
for special parades, celebrations, street fairs and unforeseen special 
contingencies) would be reduced by approximately $146,136. Each of the 
remaining affected organizations would be reduced by $68,684. Thus, of the six 
funds impacted by the proposed Cultural Equity Endowment Fund, the General 
Fund would be reduced by the greatest amount. 

7. According to Ms. Thelma Shelly, Director of the War Memorial, the War 
Memorial would have to raise rents in order to offset the proposed Hotel Tax 
revenue decreases of approximately $68,684 in FY 1993-94, $108,024 in FY 1994-95 
and $151,448 in FY 1995-96. Ms. Shelly advises that the War Memorial will be 
incurring expenses in the future for capital improvements on the War Memorial 
building that would have to be funded through increased rent fees if the War 
Memorial's Hotel Tax revenues decrease. 

8. As noted on the attached table, the proposed Cultural Equity Endowment 
Fund is targeted to consist of 1.25 percent and 1.75 percent of Hotel Tax funds 
during the first and second years, respectively, and 2.25 percent of Hotel Tax 
funds thereafter. The Task Force's report assumes that the Cultural Equity 
Endowment Fund would commence in 1993-94, and that Hotel Tax revenues 
would increase by five percent annually. Based on these assumptions, and based 
on FY 1992-93 estimated Hotel Tax revenues of $55,671,000 in 1992-93 generated 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 30, 1992 

from the basic 8 percent Hotel Tax rate, the Budget Analyst estimates that the 
total dollar amount of the Cultural Equity Endowment Fund would be as follows: 

• $730,682 in FY 1993-94 (1.25 percent of the current estimated revenues 
plus a five percent increase); 

• $1,073,489 in FY 1994-95 (1.75 percent of the estimated FY 1993-94 
revenues plus a five percent increase); and 

• $1,450,038 in FY 1995-96 (2.25 percent of estimated FY 1994-95 total 
revenues plus a five percent increase. The Cultural Equity Endowment 
would consist of this 2.25 percent of Hotel Tax revenues in perpetuity; the 
estimated dollar amount would vary in future years based on the dollar 
amount of Hotel Tax revenues. 

9. The Budget Analyst notes that Hotel Tax revenues will not necessarily 
increase by five percent per year. Hotel Tax revenues are paid by tourists, and 
tourism generally declines during economic downturns and increases during 
upturns. A five percent annual increase is higher than the current rate of 
inflation. Thus, an assumption that Hotel Tax revenues will increase 5 percent 
per year assumes that either the number of tourists staying in hotels or the rates 
charged by such hotels will increase in future years, an assumption that may not 
be realized depending on economic conditions. Historically, the 8 percent of the 
total 11 percent Hotel Tax has generated the following actual revenues: 

FY Amount Percent Increase 

1987-88 $44,357,994 n/a 

1988-89 48,810,018 10.0 % 

1989-90 46,120,913 (5.5) 

1990-91 50,588,835 9.7 

1991-92 52,389,209 3.6 

As demonstrated by actual revenues over the past five years, Hotel Tax 
revenues are inconsistent. In 1989-90, Hotel Tax revenues actually decreased 5.5 
percent from the prior year. Most recently, revenues were less than the 5 percent 
annual increase estimated by the Task Force. The average increase over the past 
four years is 4.45 percent. 

10. The Task Force estimates that the dollar amount allocated to the five 
organizations which would receive a reduction in the percentage of the Hotel Tax 
funds would not decrease, because the Task Force anticipates that Hotel Tax 
revenues will increase 5 percent per year in 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96. Instead, 
the Cultural Equity Endowment funds would come from a reduction in future 
increases. Assuming the five percent annual increase in Hotel Tax revenues 
included in the Task Force's report is correct, the Budget Analyst concurs that 
each of the five organizations would receive increases in the dollar amount of 
their Hotel Tax revenues. However, the Budget Analyst notes that if the dollar 
amount of Hotel Tax funds allocated to these organizations does not increase over 
time, the value of the amount allocated to these organizations would decrease 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

11 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 30, 1992 

because of the value of a dollar decreases over time due to inflation. In other 
words, expenses for these organizations would go up due to inflation, but if their 
anticipated revenue increase was allocated to the Cultural Equity Endowment 
Fund, the organizations would need to identify areas for expenditure reductions 
or increase other revenues. 

11. According to Ms. Joanne Chow Winship, Director of the Arts 
Commission, the Arts Commission or the Grants for the Arts were both 
recommended as the agency to administer the Cultural Equity Endowment Fund. 
According to Ms. Winship, the proposed Task Force's Implementation Committee 
(File 197-92-5) would decide which agency would administer the proposed 
Cultural Equity Endowment Program. Ms. Winship advises that because of the 
nature of the proposed Cultural Equity Endowment Fund, the Endowment would 
be expensive to administer. According to Ms. Winship, the Task Force envisioned 
a decision-making process involving a great deal of public input. In addition, 
grants to individual artists, which would include sample artwork, require that 
applications be inventoried and artwork be returned. These activities increase 
costs, so that approximately 20 percent of the Cultural Equity Endowment Fund 
would be required to support administrative costs, Ms. Winship estimates. 
However, Ms. Marie Acosta Colon, Director of the Mexican Museum and member 
of the Cultural Affairs Task Force, estimates that between five to twenty percent of 
the proposed Cultural Equity Endowment Fund would be required to fund 
administrative costs. Ms. Colon reports that the level of administrative costs 
would depend on which agency would be responsible for administering the 
proposed fund. 

12. In addition to deciding which agency would be responsible for 
administering the proposed Cultural Equity Endowment Program, the proposed 
Task Force's Implementation Committee (File 197-92-5) would develop proposals 
to implement other recommendations of the Cultural Affairs Task Force's final 
report. 

Recommendation 

The proposed ordinance and resolution are policy matters for the Board of 
Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Attachment 



a. vP 



s* 



CL «0 

O 3 

C *p 



CO CO CO 

•«r tt rr tt 



TT ^ -^ 



o> •"! ~~_ ■"" °* *i <**_ ■* *P 
o o oj ^ *- ^r co 

*- CO — CO 



CO CO 

88 

o" o 



o> o> CO 



a> 



tt o •- o_ "<r co 



SKN(NJ(VJWOJCO(D 

»- o) oi to (o d (jj ib d 



CM CM <M C\J 



o o o o 



o co o o> o 



O OJ o ^- 



co •** h- , ^- 
S2 ^-_ ^ CW CO «J" CO * CM 

ooocococoioco" 

CMOJ'-WIOOJCOU) 



° 9 9 ° o o o o - 
OJOJCMOJCOIOCOIOO 
CO i CO i CO CO OJ OJ [ CM ^- CD 

■■— " O) C> (D «fl d (O N 6 



■^-^r-^Trocoooo 
co co co co co c 

CD CD t£> CD *-_ a 

co* co" a>" co" to" o 
co to co co *<r c 



co in 

NNlO(O»-C0C0(0 

io" lO~ O)" co" 



TfTr^o>^TW 



OOOOCOOCO'^-Q 

ooomcMiTjcMcnto 

n 6 6 «i «o d (b n d 



8 00 - 



<° s 



in m 






CO CO 

<r> <o 
o" o 



<£> CO 
CO <£> 

co" o 



o|?33 a 



<» {2 c: a> a> 

3 O 



5 £*!£ 



8«| 

§ a. O cyj _i D 



s*J 



E 


K 


5 








T> _ 




.5 2 








fr»- 










E 








3 



29 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 30, 1992 

Item 6 - File 127-92-10 

Note: This item was continued at the December 9, 1992 Finance Committee 
meeting. 

Item: Ordinance amending Part III, Municipal Code, by adding 

Section 75.1 to require persons filing a statement of 
fictitious business name pursuant to California Business 
and Professions Code Section 17900 et. seq. to provide proof 
of compliance, including payment of all appropriate license 
fees, with all applicable sections of Article II of Part III of 
the Municipal Code. 



Description: 



Under the Administrative Code, the City imposes three 
types of business registration requirements. All businesses 
in San Francisco are required to obtain a business tax 
re gistration certificate from the Tax Collector, in order for 
the City to enforce collection of business taxes (businesses 
with annual gross receipts under $15,000 are not required 
to pay a business tax registration fee, but still must obtain 
the certificate). In addition, some, but not all, businesses 
are required to obtain regulatory permits of various kinds, 
such as Health Department permits for restaurants or Fire 
Department permits for gas stations, which are issued by 
the individual departments. Finally, some, but not all, 
businesses are required to obtain business licenses , 
including, for example, licenses for laundries, sightseeing 
operations, theatres, automotive repairs shops, and others. 

In addition, the Recorder administers the filing and 
issuance of fictitious business name statements, which are 
required of individuals who adopt a name different than 
their own as a name for their business. 

The proposed ordinance would amend the Administrative 
Code to require that individuals who file a statement of 
fictitious business name with the Recorder must provide 
proof of payment of all appropriate business license fees, or 
a waiver of any license requirements, from the Tax 
Collector before the fictitious business name statement will 
be issued. 

The proposed ordinance would not require persons filing a 
fictitious business name statement to present proof that 
they have obtained the required business tax registration 
certificate. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



30 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 30, 1992 



Comments: 



1. The proposed ordinance would require all businesses 
filing a fictitious business name (FBN) statement to present 
to the Recorder either a business license issued by the Tax 
Collector or a waiver of the City's business license 
requirements. However, Ms. Anita Jin of the Business 
License Division of the Tax Collector's Office reports that 
not all businesses are required to obtain a business license, 
and the Tax Collector currently does not issue waivers to 
businesses which are not required to obtain a business 
license. Therefore, a waiver of business license 
requirements, which some businesses would be required to 
obtain under the proposed ordinance, is not available from 
the Tax Collector under existing procedures. 

2. Under Part III, Article 12B, Section 1003 of the 
Administrative Code, all businesses are required to obtain a 
business tax registration certificate from the Tax Collector 
and pay a business registration fee (although businesses 
with annual gross receipts of less than $15,000 are exempt 
from the fee). Therefore, a business tax registration 
certificate is required to be issued by the Tax Collector to all 
businesses in San Francisco. The proposed ordinance 
would not require businesses to present evidence that they 
have obtained the required business tax registration 
certificate. 

3. Mr. Sullivan states that it would be highly inadvisable to 
require businesses to present evidence that they have 
obtained a business license or a waiver of business license 
requirements before filing a FBN statement. This is 
because 1) not all businesses are required to obtain a 
business license, 2) the Tax Collector does not issue waivers 
of business licenses to businesses which do not require 
licenses, and is not equipped to do so, and 3) entrepreneurs 
often file FBN statements before obtaining business 
licenses, in order to use the business name to conduct a 
series of other activities, such as opening checking accounts, 
which must be performed before the business can open. Mr. 
Sullivan states that to require entrepreneurs to obtain 
business licenses, or a written waiver of business license 
requirements, before a FBN statement could be filed would 
lead to lengthy delays in the inception of new businesses. 

4. According to the City and County Recorder, Mr. Bruce 
Jamison, and Mr. Richard Sullivan of the Tax Collector's 
Office, the intent of the proposed ordinance was to enhance 
compliance with the City's business tax, by requiring all 
businesses filing a FBN statement to present evidence that 
they have obtained the business tax registration certificate, 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



31 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 30, 1992 

pursuant to Article 12-B of the Administrative Code, rather 
than proof of compliance with the City's business license 
requirements, pursuant to Article 2 of the Admini strati ve 
Code. Mr. Jamison requests that the proposed ordinance be 
continued to the call of the Chair to allow for preparation of 
an amendment of the whole that would require proof of 
compliance with the business tax registration requirements 
of Article 12B of the Administrative Code, rather than proof 
of compliance with the business license requirements of 
Article 2 of the Administrative Code, for businesses filing a 
fictitious business name statement with the Recorder. 

Recommendation: Continue the proposed ordinance to allow for preparation of 
an amendment of the whole, as requested by Mr. Jamison. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 30, 1992 

Item 7 -File 101-92-23 

Department San Francisco General Hospital (SFGH) 

Item: Supplemental appropriation ordinance appropriating $1.4 

million for two capital improvement projects to renovate 
Wards 14 and 15 (the SFGH Business Office) and the 
Emergency Room/Outpatient Registration areas. 

Amount: $1.4 million 

Source of Funds: SFGH Capital Reserve 

Description: The Mayor's budget for FY 1992-93 included $160,000 for 

planning of an SFGH capital project to renovate Wards 14 
and 15 at SFGH. SFGH had estimated that the total capital 
project would cost an estimated $1.6 million. Subsequently, in 
approving the City's budget for FY 1992-93, the Board of 
Supervisors restored $1.4 million for this project as a General 
Fund Reserve subject to future appropriation by 
supplemental appropriation ordinance. 

The proposed supplemental appropriation would provide 
funding for the renovation of the Business Offices in order to 
increase staff efficiency and productivity by improving space 
utilization. The Business Offices include Patient Accounting 
(Billing, Credit and Collections), Accounts Receivable, 
Inpatient Eligibility, Department of Social Services Eligibility 
Workers, Revenue Enhancement Units, General Accounting 
and Payroll. The areas occupied by these Business Offices 
were formerly hospital wards and still contain fixtures such 
as dishwasher, steel kitchen cabinets, bathtubs, and shower 
stalls. Proposed renovations include the installation of new 
lighting fixtures, computer and telephone cable conduits, 
handicapped access to restrooms and public areas and two 
cashier windows in the Ward 24 patient billing area 
(currently patients must walk across the street to another 
building to pay their bills). The proposed renovations would 
also double the space occupied by the Department of Social 
Services Eligibility Workers that process applications for 
Medi-Cal. 

The proposed supplemental appropriation would provide 
funding for the renovation of the outpatient registration, 
emergency room waiting and admitting areas to expand the 
capacity to register, admit patients and perform financial 
interviews and assist with eligibility. The registration unit 
interviews and registers an average of over 800 out-patients 
daily and admits an average of over 50 patients to the 

HOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



33 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 30, 1992 



Comments: 



inpatient units daily. The registration and eligibility workers 
currently perform their duties in areas that were designed to 
provide security but do not provide privacy for confidential 
interviews of patients and completion of Medi-Cal 
applications. The proposed renovation project would change 
the design of the registration area to provide greater 
confidentiality for financial interviews. According to SFGH, 
these improvements will result in increases in hospital 
revenues by increasing the number of patients eligible for 
Medi-Cal, increasing the ability to identify Medicare and 
other paying patients in the emergency room and improving 
the Medi-Cal eligibility efforts in the outpatient clinics. 

The SFGH's preliminary cost estimate for these renovation 
projects is attached. 

1. SFGH reports that determinations have not yet been made 
as to what portions of the construction work will be 
performed by SFGH maintenance staff and what portions 
will be contracted. Therefore, $643,500 for construction work 
to the Business Offices (including $505,000 for Open Office 
Area Ward 14/15, $16,000 for moving cost, $13,500 for Interim 
DSS Unit/Ward 82, $19,000 for asbestos work and $90,000 for 
project contingencies) and $496,500 for construction work to 
the outpatient registration, emergency room waiting and 
admitting areas (including $215,000 for the emergency room, 
$216,500 for outpatient registration and admitting areas and 
$65,000 for project contingencies) should be reserved pending 
determinations regarding use of maintenance staff or outside 
contractors, and if outside contractors are to be used, 
selection of the contractors and their MBE/WBE status. 



2. The Capital Improvement Advisory Committee (CIAC) has 
not endorsed the proposed project but also does not reject it. 
According to the CIAC's report on the proposed capital 
project, "the CIAC does not object to the passage of the 
supplemental appropriation. We would reiterate, however, 
that there are a multiplicity of projects of higher priority from 
a Citywide point of view which we would prefer to have been 
funded." 

Recommendations: 1. Amend the proposed supplemental appropriation 
ordinance to reserve a total of $1,140,000 for construction 
($643,500 for construction work to the Business Offices and 
$496,500 for construction work to the outpatient registration, 
emergency room waiting and admitting areas) pending 
determinations as to what portions of the construction work 
will be performed by SFGH maintenance staff and what 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



34 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 30, 1992 



portions will be contracted and if outside contractors are to be 
used, selection of the contractors and their MBE/WBE status. 

2. Approve the proposed supplemental appropriation 
ordinance as amended. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Attachment 
Page 1 of 2 



SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL HOSPITAL 
BUSINESS OFFICE/DSS 



DESIGN/PROJECT MANAGEMENT 
Design 15% 

Construction Inspection/Admin. 4% 
SFGH Project Management/Contract 8% 
Permit 1 .5% 



$135,000 

$36,000 

$72,000 

$13,500 

Subtotal: $256,500 



CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE 
Open Office Area Ward 1 4/1 5: 
Electrical & Lighting 
Computer Cable 
Sheet Vinyl Flooring/Carpet 
Painting 

Demolition & Patch 
Modular Work Stations 
Handicap-Accessible Toilets 



$60,000 

$20,000 

$50,000 

$50,000 

S1 5,000 

$21 0,000 

$100,000 

Subtotal: S505.000 



Moving Cost: 



SubtoU 



S1 6,000 



Interim DSS Unit/Ward 82: 
Computer Connections 
Workstations 



Subtot; 



S3, 500 
SI 0,000 
$1 3,500 



Asbestos 
Abatement 
Industrial Hygienist 



SubtotJ 



S1 5,000 

S4,000 

S1 9,000 



TOTAL PROJECT COST 
PROJECT CONTINGENCY 



S81 0,000 
S90.000 



TOTAL: 



cc-nn n~ -■ 



000 



36 



Attachment 
Page 2 of 2 



SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL HOSPITAL 
EMERGENCY ROOM/OUTPATIENT REGISTRATION 



DESIGN/PROJECT MANAGEMENT 
Design 15% 

Contxuction Inspeciton/Admin 4% 
SFGH Project Managment/Contract 
Permit 1.5% 



$105,000 

$28,000 

$60,000 

$10.500 

Subtotal: $203,500 



CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE 
Emergeny Room 

Gyp. 8d. Walls 

Acoustical Ceiling 

Painting 
— Demolition & Patch 

Vinyl Flooring 

Fire Shutters 

Mechanical 

Lighting 

Electrical 

Communications Cabling 

Handicap-Accessible Toilets 

Work Surfaces/Casework 



OPD Registration and Admitting 
Gyp. Bd. Walls 
Acoustical Ceiling 
Painting 

Demolition & Patch 
Vinyl Flooring 
Fire Shutters 
Mechanical 
Lighting 
Eiectrical 

Communications Cabling 
Handicap-Accessible Toilets 
V.'ork Surfaces/Casework 



OTAL PROJECT C3ST 
'ADJECT COf* ; ; IN ■. 



$27,000 
$10,000 
$15,000 

$7,000 

$9,000 
$10,000 
$20,000 

$7,000 
$12,000 

$6,000 
$43,000 
$49,000 



Subtotal: $215,000 



$15,000 

$6,000 

$7,000 

$7,000 

$11,000 

$15,000 

$18,000 

$12,000 

$10,000 

$7,000 

$48,500 

$60,000 



Subtotal: S216.500 

S535.000 
$65,000 



TOTAL s 700.000 



37 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 30, 1992 

Item 8 -File 101-92-24 



Department 
Item: 

Amount: 
Source of Funds: 
Description; 



San Francisco General Hospital (SFGH) 

Supplemental appropriation ordinance appropriating 
$379,000 for a capital improvement project to renovate Ward 
86, the AIDS Ward, at SFGH. 

$379,000 

New Medi-Cal revenue 

The AIDS Ward (Ward 86) at SFGH is the outpatient clinic 
that specializes in the care of HD7 infected persons. In 
addition to primary care the AIDS Ward provides other 
outpatient services including ongoing psychiatric care, social 
services, acute psychiatric assessment, nutritional 
counseling, dermatology services, phlebotomy and acute 
drop-in care. The AIDS Ward also receives patients 
discharged from the SFGH inpatient AIDS unit. 

According to SFGH, the AIDS Ward has experienced 
increased levels of overcrowding in recent years resulting in 
fire and occupational safety hazards for patients and staff. In 
1989 there were approximately 18,000 outpatient visits to the 
AIDS Ward, in 1990 approximately 19,600 outpatient visits 
and in 1991 approximately 23,600 outpatient visits (excluding 
evening clinic visits). When patients were unable to find seats 
in the waiting area they overflowed into hallways and 
stairwells. Because of a lack of storage areas in the AIDS 
Ward, medical supplies are stacked in the hallways. The 
AIDS Ward has received fire citations for the unsafe 
conditions. 

The proposed renovation of the AIDS Ward would increase 
the utilization of existing .clinic space by converting the 
existing treatment area info two examination rooms with a 
medical supplies storage area in one of the examination 
rooms, converting an existing office space into a large 
treatment area and by making the AIDS Ward fully 
wheelchair accessible. SFGH reports that the AIDS Ward 
has been cited by the City's Fire Marshal for not meeting Fire 
Code Regulations. Specific renovation components include 
the following: 

Fire code regulations require installation of fire walls and 
partitions and a fire alarm system. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



18 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 30, 1992 

Replace all carpeting with linoleum in the chemotherapy 
area. 

Computer cable will be installed from the basement of the 
building to the AIDS Ward in order to allow for on-line 
access of the ward to the clinical laboratory. 

Install additional sinks. 

Medical equipment will be permanently wall mounted 
and IV poles and curtains will be installed from the 
ceiling. 

Additional telephone equipment will be installed. 

A small room that was previously used for the storage of 
refrigerated blood samples is now vacant and will be 
remodeled for use as a staff support room. 

The medical records room will be remodeled to improve 
access to medical records. 

The SFGH's preliminary budget estimate for the proposed 
renovation to the ADDS Ward is attached. According to this 
preliminary budget the total project cost is $409,000 whereas 
the proposed supplemental appropriation is $379,000 or 
$30,000 less than the project cost. The $30,000 difference was 
included in the SFGH FY 1992-93 budget for initial planning 
of the project. 

The proposed source of funds is Medi-Cal Disproportionate 
Share Revenues from the State pursuant to Senate Bill 
(SB)1255. Because of restrictions on the use of SB 1255 funds, 
the Department of Public Health has agreed with the State 
agency that administers SB 1255 funds to dedicate the 
$379,000 in additional Medi-Cal Disproportionate Share 
Revenues for renovation of the AIDS Ward. 

According to the AIDS Ward project schedule, construction 
can be completed in two months. 

Comments: 1. SFGH reports that determinations have not yet been made 

as to what portions of the construction work will be 
performed by SFGH maintenance staff and what portions 
will be contracted. Therefore, $292,435 for construction 
including $55,400 for Room 607, $66,700 for Room 620, $13,000 
for Nursing Stations North and South, $27,200 for Corridor 
Life Safety Issues, $19,000 for Elevator Lobby/Reception Area, 
$26,500 for Restrooms/Dirty Utility Rooms, $44,300 for 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

39 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 30, 1992 

Asbestos Abatement and $40,335 for Contingency should be 
reserved pending determinations regarding use of 
maintenance staff or outside contractors, and if outside 
contractors are to be used, selection of the contractors and 
their MBE/WBE status. 

2. The Capital Improvement Advisory Committee (CIAC) has 
not endorsed the proposed project but also does not reject it. 
According to the CIAC's report on the proposed capital 
project, "the CIAC does not object to the passage of the 
supplemental appropriation. We would reiterate, however, 
that there are a multiplicity of projects of higher priority from 
a Citywide point of view which we would prefer to have been 
funded." 

3. SFGH indicates that because of restrictions on the use of SB 
1255 funds, the $379,000 in additional Medi-Cal revenues 
cannot be used for regular SFGH operating expenses and 
must be used for a program related expenditure, such as the 
proposed capital improvement project. 

Recommendations: 1. Amend the proposed supplemental appropriation 
ordinance to reserve a total of $292,435 for construction 
pending determinations as to what portions of the 
construction work will be performed by SFGH maintenance 
staff and what portions will be contracted and if outside 
contractors are to be used, selection of the contractors and 
their MBE/WBE status. 

2. Approve the proposed supplemental appropriation 
ordinance as amended. 



HOARD OF SUPLKVISQRS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

40 



Attachment 
Page 1 of 2 

SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL HOSPITAL 
AIDS OUTPATIENT REMODEL BLDG. 80 

DESIGN/PROJECT MANAGEMENT 

Design 15% $61,350 

Construction Inspection/Admin. 4% $16,360 

SFGH Project Management/Contract 8% $32,720 

Permit 1.5% $6,135 



Subtotal: $116,565 

CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE 
Room 607: 

Fire Wall & Partitions $3,500 

Door $1 ,500 

Ceiling $3,000 

Sheet Vinyl Flooring $6,400 

Electrical & Lighting $10,000 

Computer Cable $5,000 

Install Sinks & Hopper $10,000 

Equipment $16,000 



Subtotal: $55,400 

Room 620: 

Fire Wall & Partitions $5,600 

Demo storage room wall $1 ,500 

Door $3,000 

Ceiling $4,200 

Sheet Vinyl Flooring $6,400 

Electrical & Ughting $13,000 

Computer Cable ( $5,000 

Install Sinks & Hopper / $10,000 

Equipment $18,000 



Subtotal: S66.700 



41 



Attachment 
Page 2 of 2 



SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL HOSPITAL 
AIDS OUTPATIENT REMODEL BLDG. 80 



Nursing Stations North & South: 
Corridor Separation 
Roll Down Fire Curtain (North) 



$8,000 

$5,000 

Subtotal: $13,000 



Corridor Life Safety Issues: 
40 Door Closers @$350 each 
Replace 12 Doors @$1100 each 



Elevator Lobby/Reception Area: 
Corridor Separation 
Roll Down Fire Curtain 



Restrooms/Dirty Utility Rooms: 
Hopper Sink 
2 Doors 

Upgrade StorageAA/ork Surfaces 
Bathroom Accessibility 



Asbestos 
Abatement 
Industrial Hygienist 



$14,000 

$13.200 

Subtotal: $27,200 



$12,000 
$7,000 



Subtotal: $19,000 



$9,000 
$2,500 
$9,000 
$6,000 



Subtotal: $26,500 



$37,000 
$7,300 



Subtotal: $44,300 



TOTAL PROJECT COST 
PROJECT CONTINGENCY 



TOTAL: 



S368.665 
$409,000 



■ 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 30, 1992 

Item 9 -File 101 -9 9-9.fi 

Department: Department of Public Health (DPH) 

San Francisco General Hospital (SFGH) 

Item: Supplemental appropriation ordinance appropriating 

$10,128,907 in new, Medi-Cal revenues (SB 855), and 
transferring the new revenues to the DPH for Other Current 
Services and a Reserve for DPH Revenue Shortfall. 

Amount: $10,128,907 

Source of Funds: Increased Medi-Cal revenues 

Description: Senate Bill 855 established a Payment Adjustment Program 

that provides a mechanism for additional supplemental 
payments to the State's Disproportionate share hospitals, 
such as SFGH. A disproportionate share hospital is denned 
as a hospital with a Medicaid inpatient utilization rate 
higher than the State average. Under the Payment 
Adjustment Program, the City is required to make an 
intergovernmental transfer of funds to the State. The State 
obtains matching Federal funds to the intergovernmental 
transfer (the intergovernmental transfer is essentially a local 
match) and the total of the intergovernmental plus the 
matching Federal funds are then distributed back to SFGH as 
Medi-Cal revenues based on Medi-Cal patient days of service. 
The amount that the City must pay to the State as an 
intergovernmental transfer is based on a statutory formula. 

The DPH has already paid $38 million to the State for the FY 
1992-93 intergovernmental transfer based on the State's 
formula and expects to receive $64.7 million back from the 
State. Based on an intergovernmental transfer of $38 million 
and a return of a total of $64.7 million including the $38 
million intergovernmental transfer plus matching Federal 
funds of $26.7 million, the City is getting back approximately 
$1.70 for each dollar advanced to the State. 

The State has revised their allocation of SB 855 Medi-Cal 
allocations for FY 1992-93 and requires the City to pay an 
additional $8,488,622 to the State for the revised FY 1992-93 
intergovernmental transfer. The State will return an 
additional $10,128,907 in Medi-Cal revenues to the SFGH, 
including the additional $8,488,622 intergovernmental 
transfer and $1,640,285 in matching Federal funds. Based on 
the total FY 1992-93 payments to the State of $$46,488,622 ($38 
million plus $8,488,622) and a return of a total of $74,828,907 
($64.7 million plus $10,128,907) in Medi-Cal revenues for KV 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



43 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 30, 1992 



Comment: 



1992-93, the SFGH will receive approximately $1.61 for each 
dollar advanced to the State for FY 1992-93. 

The proposed supplemental appropriation ordinance would 
recognize the additional $10,128,907 in Medi-Cal revenue for 
FY 1992-93 and would transfer $8,488,622 of the Medi-Cal 
revenue increase to the Other Services budget for DPH to be 
used as the source of funds for the required 
intergovernmental transfer. The $1,640,285 balance in new 
revenue over and above the $8,488,622 intergovernmental 
transfer would be set aside in the DPH budget as a Reserve 
for DPH Revenue Shortfalls budgetary account subject to 
future appropriation when the full $10,128,907 in new 
revenue is assured based on sufficient patient days to 
generate that amount of Medi-Cal revenue in accordance 
with the State's formula for reimbursement. 

Ms. Susan Ehrlich of DPH reports that patient days at SFGH 
are meeting the SFGH projection for FY 1992-93 and that 
SFGH will earn all Medi-Cal revenue allocated to the City by 
the State pursuant to SB 855. 



Recommendation: Approve the ordinance. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



44 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 30, 1992 

Item 10 - File 65-92-11 

Note: This item was continued at the November 4, 1992 Finance Committee 
meeting. 



Departments: 
Item: 



Location: 
Purpose of Lease: 

Lessee: 

No.ofSq.Ftand 
Cost per Month: 



% Increase Over 
Prior Year: 



Term of Lease: 



Comments: 



Real Estate 

San Francisco Clean Water Program 

Ordinance authorizing and approving a renewal lease of 
City-owned property at 1800 Oakdale Avenue (Southeast 
Community Facility, Northwest corner of Phelps Street and 
Oakdale Avenue) to the San Francisco Community College 
District to operate a satellite campus of the City College of San 
Francisco 

1800 Oakdale Avenue, commonly known as the Southeast 
Community Center 

Space for a skills center consisting of classrooms, a library 
and other educational facility support services for the San 
Francisco Community College District for use as a satellite 
campus of the City College of San Francisco 

San Francisco Community College District 



$13,104.18 monthly rent for approximately 35,800 sq. ft. or 
approximately $0.37 per sq. ft. per month 



Annual Revenue: $157,250 



None - The Real Estate Department states that because of 
budget constraints, the San Francisco Community College 
District cannot afford an increase in rent for fiscal year 1992- 
93 (the proposed lease does provide for three percent annual 
increases in rent beginning 'July 1, 1993). 

From date of lease execution through June 30, 1995 (two years 
and seven months if lease is finally approved effective 
December 1, 1992). Presently, the lease is on a month-to- 
month basis. 

1. The San Francisco Community College District has 
occupied the Southeast Community Center since 1986 under 
a five year lease that expired on October 30, 1991 and on a 
month-to-month basis since October 31, 1991. 

2. On July 1 of each year beginning in 1993 the rental amount 
will be increased by three percent. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



45 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 30, 1992 



3. A provision of the proposed lease requires the Clean Water 
Program to make modifications to the Southeast Community 
Center space that is occupied by the City College to meet 
disabled access requirements as required by the American 
Disabilities Act. The Clean Water Program estimates the 
cost of such improvements will total approximately $48,000. 
Funding for the improvements will be included in the 1993-94 
Clean Water Program budget. The San Francisco 
Community College District will not reimburse any of these 
costs which are the responsibility of the building owner. 

4. The City will provide utility services including gas, water, 
electricity, heating, ventilation, air conditioning, parking, 
landscaping, and sewer. The San Francisco Community 
College District will continue to reimburse the City for 85 
percent of the total utility services costs for the whole 
building. The 85 percent rate for reimbursement was 
negotiated based on the 35,800 square feet of space occupied by 
the City College compared to the total area of the Southeast 
Community Center of approximately 42,500 square feet 
(approximately 85 percent). The Head Start Child Care 
Program and the Senior Escort Program occupy the 
remaining 6,700 square feet of space at the center. The San 
Francisco Community College District reimbursed the City 
$12,448 for water and sewage service in fiscal year 1991-92, 
according to Mr. Alex Pitcher of the Clean Water Program. 
Mr. Pitcher was not able to provide the amount of 
reimbursements for electricity or other utilities, as of the 
writing of this report. The San Francisco Community 
College District is wholly responsible for security costs for the 
entire facility. 

5. The Southeast Community Center was constructed in 1986 
to mitigate the construction of the Southeast Treatment 
Plant. The mitigation order issued by the State Water 
Resources Control Board Requires that a skills center be 
located at the Southeast Community Center. Mr. John Roddy 
of the City Attorney's Office states that the mitigation order 
requirement that a skills center occupy the facility has been 
met by locating the City College of San Francisco satellite 
campus at the Southeast Community Center. 

6. The Real Estate Department reports that although the 
proposed rental amount is below the fair market value of rent 
for the area, the San Francisco Community College District 
provides a public benefit in accordance with the designated 
use for the facility. According to the August 7, 1992 letter 
from the Real Estate Department to the Budget Analyst 
regarding a new lease for the Head Start Child Care 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



46 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 30, 1992 

Program at the Southeast Community Center (File 65-92-12), 
the fair market value of space at the center is $1.25 per square 
foot per month ($15 per year), or $537,000 annually for the 
35,800 square feet of space occupied by the San Francisco 
Community College District. The proposed annual rent of 
$157,250 is $379,750 or approximately 71 percent less than the 
fair market value of $537,000. Therefore, approval of the 
proposed ordinance is a policy matter for the Board of 
Supervisors. 

Recommendation: Given that the proposed rental rate for the lease is $379,750 or 
approximately 71 percent less than fair market value of 
$537,000, the proposed lease renewal for approximately two 
years and seven months is a policy matter for the Board of 
Supervisors. 



hoard of gUEEffiaSQBS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

47 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 30, 1992 

Item 11 -File 62-92-3 

Department: Recreation and Park Department 

Item: Ordinance approving a five-year lease with Frederick Lo for 

management and operation of the Coit Tower Facility in San 
Francisco, California. 

Description: The proposed ordinance would approve a five-year lease to 

Frederick Lo for the management and operation of the Coit 
Tower Facility including the following seven services: 

1. Sell and Collect Admission Fees 

2. Operate the Elevator 

3. Establish and Operate the Gift Shop 

4. Establish and Operate a Mobile Unit Food Stand 
(Outdoor 

only after June 30, 1993) 

5. Establish and Operate an outdoor Viewing Machine 

Concession on the Sidewalk of Coit Tower Parking Lot 

6. Rental of Space for Special Events 

7. Establish and Operate a Tour Guide Concession. 

Under the proposed five-year lease agreement, effective when 
the Board of Supervisors approves the proposed ordinance, 
Frederick Lo would annually pay the City the greater of the 
following: 

(a) Minimum Rent - sum of $80,226 plus 90 percent of 
gross receipts from admission fees 

(b) Percentage Rent - based on gross receipts from the 
following: 

Admission Fees / 90% 

Gift Shop r. 20.26% 

Food Stand ' 15.26% 

Viewing Machine Concessions 50% 

Special Event Rentals 40% 

Tour Concession 10% 

Thus, based on Coit Tower paid admissions in FY 1991-92 of 
$561,438, under the proposed lease, Frederick Lo would pay 
the City a minimum of $585,520 annually (90 percent of 
$561,438 is $505,294 plus the proposed minimum annual 
payment of $80,226). In FY 1991-92, the Department collected 
a total of $571,438 in revenues from Coit Tower operations 
including revenues received from the gift shop operated by 
the Friends of the Recreation and Park Department based on 

B OARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



48 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 30, 1992 



Comments: 



a minimum of ten percent of gross receipts. Thus, the 
minimum payment of proposed lease would guarantee the 
Recreation and Park Department approximately $14,082 
more than the Department is currently receiving. In 
addition, the Department would reduce its costs by 
approximately $80,000 to $90,000 annually (See Comment 1 
below). 

Under the proposed lease, the City would be responsible for 
paying gas, electricity and water as well as to repair and 
maintain the facility. The lessee would be responsible for 
cleaning and upkeep of the facility. Currently, the City is 
responsible for the cleaning and upkeep at an approximate 
cost of $7,800 annually excluding supplies. 

Since December of 1992, Frederick Lo has been running the 
Coit Tower Facility under a permit on a month-to-month 
lease pending approval of the proposed ordinance by the 
Board of Supervisors. Prior to December, 1992, the Recreation 
and Park Department operated Coit Tower except for the Gift 
Shop which was operated by the Friends of the Recreation 
and Park Department. According to Mr. Dennis Chan of the 
Recreation and Park Department, in FY 1991-92 when the 
City and the Friends of the Recreation and Park Department 
operated the Coit Tower facilities, the Department collected 
approximately $571,438 in revenues. In FY 1991-92, operation 
of the Coit Tower facilities cost the Department 
approximately $135,581 in salaries and fringe benefits. 

1. According to Mr. Phil Arnold of the Recreation and Park 
Department, the Department is proposing to contract out the 
operation of Coit Tower to reduce the Department's 
Temporary Salaries. In FY 1992-93, the Department's budget 
for Temporary Salaries was reduced by approximately $2 
million. The Recreation and Park Department employs three 
permanent 3302 Vendors and one 4321 Cashier II to work at 
Coit Tower. These four employees would be transferred into 
other positions that are being funded through the 
Department's Temporary Salaries. The Temporary 
Employees who currently fill these other positions would 
essentially be "bumped" by the Coit Tower permanent 
employees. Mr. Arnold reports that by contracting out Coit 
Tower operations, the Department would save an estimated 
$80,000 to $90,000 annually in Temporary Salaries. This 
$80,000 to $90,000 in Temporary Salary savings would be part 
of the $2 million reduction in the Department's FY 1992-93 
budget. Ms. Robin Bergstaller of the Recreation and Park 
Department reports that the Department does not expect to 
lay-off Temporary Employees. Rather, the Department would 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



49 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 30, 1992 



Recommendation: 



not hire part-time employees on an as needed basis as has 
been the Department practice historically. 

In addition, the Department provides approximately one 
hour each day of custodial services to the Coit Tower 
facilities. The custodian who provided the custodial services 
to Coit Tower would not be laid off because Coit Tower was 
only one of many locations the custodian cleaned. According 
to Mr. Mike Morlin of the Recreation and Park Department, 
the Department would save approximately $50.00 a week 
from reduced overtime expenses associated with cleaning 
Coit Tower on the week-ends. 

2. Mr. Chan reports the proposed lease for the Coit Tower 
facilities was competitively bid and advertised in the 
Chronicle, Examiner, Independent, Sun Reporter and other 
minority newspapers. In addition, Mr. Chan reports that the 
Department sent notices to vendors on the Human Rights 
Commission list and the lists at the Purchaser's Office. 
According to Mr. Chan, eight vendors picked up bid packages 
for the proposed lease and two submitted bids. The other bid 
received was submitted by Deborah Heller-Israel, and had an 
estimated minimum annual guarantee of $36,000 plus 91 
percent of annual admission fees or approximately $546,909 
annually (based on 1991-92 paid admissions) which is 
approximately $38,611 annually lower than Frederick Lo's 
estimated minimum annual guarantee of $585,520. 

3. Frederick Lo is a City certified MBE. 

4. According to Mr. Arnold, the Department anticipates that 
revenues generated from the Coit Tower Gift Shop would 
increase under the proposed lease by having an experienced, 
professional vendor operate the shop rather than the Friends 
of the Recreation and Park Department, a non-profit 
organization. 

5. Mr. Arnold reports that he will be unable to attend the 
December 30, 1992 Finance Committee meeting. As a result, 
Mr. Arnold requests that the proposed ordinance be 
continued for one week. 

Continue the proposed ordinance for one week as requested 
by the Department. 



HOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



50 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 30, 1992 

Item 12 -File 62-92-4 

Department* Airports Commission 



Item: 

Location: 
Purpose of Lease: 

Lessee: 

No.ofSq.Ft.and 
Revenue/Month 

Annual Revenue: 

Utilities and Janitor 
Services: 

Term of Lease: 

Escalation: 

Comments: 



Ordinance approving a Boarding Area 'E' Principal 
Concession Retail Lease between the Delstar Group and the 
City and County of San Francisco, acting by and through 
the Airports Commission. 

San Francisco International Airport, Boarding Area "E" 

The proposed lease pertains to five locations at the Airport 
for the sale of retail merchandise. 

The Delstar Group 



3,201 square feet with a minimum rental rate of 
approximately $30.11/sq.ftVmonth. 

20 percent of gross revenues, with a minimum annual 
guarantee of $1,156,482, whichever is higher. 



To be paid by lessee. 

Five years from the effective date (see Comment 11). 

Annual increases in the amount of the minimum annual 
guarantee, based on the increases in the Consumer Price 
Index. 

1. Ms. Judy Watson of the Property Management Division 
at the Airport states that four of the five retail locations 
included in the proposed lease are currently operated by 
DFS West, whose lease with the Airport will expire on 
March 31, 1993. The fifth location is being operated on a 
month-to-month basis under a holdover provision of an 
expired lease with the firm of SFO News. 

2. The Airport reports that the Delstar Group submitted the 
highest responsive competitive bid for a concession retail 
lease involving five retail locations in the North Terminal. 
According to Ms. Watson, the Airport advertised for bids in 
the San Francisco Examiner, Philippine News, Asian 
Week, and Small Business Exchange newspapers. 

3. The six bidders, their bid amounts, and the MBEAVHE 
status of the firms (based on information provided by the 
Human Rights Commission), are as follows: 

ROARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



51 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 30, 1992 



Minimum 
Annual Guarantee 
Firm Bid Amount MBE/WBE Status 

The Delstar Group $1,156,482 none 

Kass Management Services 1,072,000 Registered MBE 

Host International 1,040,250 none 

MBE, Inc. 705,705 none 

W.H. Smith Airport Services 700,000 LBE 

DFS Group/DFS West 510,000 none 

Mr. Richard Norton of the Human Rights Commission 
states that the Delstar Group, which is headquartered in 
Arizona, is not currently registered with the Human Rights 
Commission. However, the Delstar Group is a woman- 
owned business and has taken action to become a registered 
WBE based on its proposed operations at the Airport, 
according to Mr. Norton. 

4. Ms. Sandra Crumpler of the Airport states that Airport 
concessions are not subject to the requirements of the City's 
MBE/WBE ordinance, but are required to comply with 
requirements which the Airport establishes to meet the 
Airport's MBE/WBE participation goals. The Airport 
requires that, under the proposed lease, 20 percent of the 
retail concession (based on square feet of retail space), must 
be operated by a MBE firm, and 10 percent must be operated 
by a WBE firm 

5. Ms. Crumpler reports that, since the Delstar Group is a 
woman-owned business, it complies with the Airport's 
participation goal for WBE's under the proposed lease. In 
addition, the Delstar Group will be required to sub-contract 
with a MBE firm to comply with the 10 percent participation 
goal for MBE's under the proposed lease, according to Ms. 
Crumpler. S 

6. Under the proposed lease, the Delstar Group would pay 
annual rent equal to 20 percent of gross receipts, with a 
minimum annual guarantee of $1,156,482, whichever is 
greater. Ms. Watson states that for the existing retail 
outlets which occupy the 5 locations, DFS West and SFO 
News paid the Airport a combined rent in 1991-92 of 
$1,554,439. These revenues were based on the minimum 
annual guarantee included in the existing leases with DFS 
West and SFO News. 

7. On an annual basis, the Airport would receive at least the 
minimum annual guarantee from the Delstar Group of 

BOARD OF STTPKRVTSORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



52 



Memo to Finance Committee 
December 30, 1992 



$1,156,482. The Budget Analyst notes that the $1,156,